February 17, 2019

CISPA Will Destroy Internet Freedoms

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, should come up for a vote today around noon.

cispa1

cispa2

Share

Guns Will Be Confiscated, But How?

Those who seek truth are not afraid to examine the words of all those in positions of power in order to determine what is and what isn’t the truth that drives an agenda or seeks a desired outcome. The gun ownership and rights to self protection debate is full of facts, lies, half-truths, rhetoric, emotions and very little truth.

Neocon and warmonger, John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, might give us a bit of a glimpse into how the Government of the United States and/or an international power, i.e. United Nations/One World Government, intends to unwittingly disarm the American people.

Very few people understand the U.S. Constitution. Even those who claim they do, in my opinion, may be wrong. But, I’m not here to try to convince you that I understand it. I don’t, but I’m working on it. I do know enough about it to know I know little about it.

If we examine some common themes of the Constitution, i.e. Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Treaties, etc., it will help readers form a basis and assist them in understanding what Bolton and Yoo are saying about treaties and executive orders. Whether it’s the Obama Administration or the next or next, they will succeed in getting guns away from the American population. Historical odds are stacked heavily in favor of that happening. I will repeat myself one more time and say that the millions and millions of guns owned by a few million U.S. citizens is the only and last deterrent keeping us away from total despotic and tyrannical rule. Do away with the guns and everything else becomes a cake walk.

Looking at two recent Supreme Court rulings – Heller v. District of Columbia and MacDonald v. Chicago – we see that the Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. The same Court also made known that both the governments and the individuals have limits to power and rights, respectively.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution defines the executive powers of the president and also lays the groundwork for Treaties and states that lawful treaties become the supreme rule of law.

We also know that on April 2, 2013, the United States signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Law states that such signed treaties must be approved by a super majority of the U.S. Senate and, of course, signed by the president. Only then can a treaty become the supreme laws that governs us…….or not?

Historically, we have been witness to presidential power through executive orders. There is always debate as to whether certain executive orders violate the constitutional authority granted the president in defining his or her executive powers. The truth is, executive orders have been used for many, many years, but does the use and abuse of them make it right or legal? Just how far can a president go to accomplish certain things a Congress will not permit? We’ve seen some far stretches.

Executive orders are intended to be used so presidents can clarify and make unsubstantial changes to existing laws. However, many would argue that for several previous administrations abuse of such powers are an overreach of executive power. Some want to blame Barack Obama for being the first to abuse the privilege of executive privilege, but that abuse existed long before President Obama was even born.

In consideration of all this and the fact that we can easily see that the Constitution has been twisted and turned and “reinterpreted”, not unlike the way it was done in ancient times of Roman history that led to the destruction of republics and the rights of people, fear should grip the people today that we are headed in the same direction and that eventually, a treaty, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, will be implemented by executive order. This is what is known as tyranny.

But is it probable or even possible? From what I am seeing, I think it’s easy to state that it’s possible and if things don’t change, it will be probable.

I will leave you with an excerpt of what Bolton and Yoo wrote concerning this.

The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”

Opponents of capital punishment have used treaties to press the Supreme Court to stop the death penalty in Texas. Women’s rights groups advocate an international convention that would achieve the goals of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. And supporters of bans on “hate speech” invoke international norms to defeat First Amendment objections. There also is an international legal doctrine that during the period when a country has signed but not yet ratified a treaty, it must take no measures that defeat the treaty’s object and purposes. Under some liberal theories, this would allow the president to put some measures of the new arms treaty into effect by executive order.

Note: There really is no need to qualify any part of this discussion as being the fault of “liberal theories” and “liberals, and as somehow a battle between left and right, democrat or republican.” Both sides can claim equal fault or credit in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. It’s all about power and control, divided equally among power and control hungry tyrants.

Share

Blaming Bombs, Gun Moonbattery and Fascist Feinstein

blamebombs

Or, some chose to blame other things irrationally. An idiot comedian says that the Boston Marathon bombing is the result of a gun “culture.” Says the Second Amendment must go.

An idiot politician blames “sequestration” for the bombings in Boston.

An idiot left wing journalist says let’s blame the bombings on “white male privilege.”

Ignorance and Moonbattery

John Kerry, Sec. of State and someone who probably would do better just staying on his sail board with all his elite friends in, on and around Plum Island, said that Japanese students are no longer coming to America to study because they are scared; scared of our guns.

If this were true, and it’s not, wouldn’t a rational thinking person……….yeah, never mind.

Do you suppose the drop in Japanese students to study in America has anything to do with cost, economy, fewer prospective students and possibly they can get a better education at home?

Left and Right? or Left or Right?

One of the problems with playing games with the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that it seems it always has to be political – meaning left of right, liberal or conservative. Why can’t it be right or wrong?

On Powerline, John Hinderaker, talks some of his notions on the Toomey/Manchin, so-called compromise anti gun rights bill, the realities of upcoming votes on this bill and others and spends too much time bragging up the rational efforts of conservatives and the irrational thinking of liberals.

So long as every effort to get our country back onto a track not leading to hell is debated from a left and right paradigm, the only thing that might change is the length of time it takes to get there.

Waaaaaa, Waaaaaaa!

Fascist Feinstein is crying in her soup. If you listen you can hear the worlds smallest violin playing, “My Heart Bleeds for You.” The Fascist claims that most people want her gun control ideas (she never was thought to be connected at all with reality) and it’s the mean ole NRA and all their money that’s stopping her from giving all those people what she….er, I mean, what the people want.

Howard Nemerov, at Pajamas Media, does a bit of a reality check of who has money and how it has been used to make sure Fascist Feinstein stays in power. It must be what the majority of people want. Right?

Share

Nuke The Chinese

nukethechinese

Share

Biden Arrograntly Defines Task to Create New World Order

If you will listen closely, Biden says that globally things are changing and we (he is addressing bankers) need to make changes to keep up with those changes. The New World Order is already here and that New World Order, like any authoritative/government power, must change in order to fulfill its agenda.

There once was a day when any mention of “A New World Order” would have gotten you a trip to the looney house, but today it is spoken of casually in all corners of political and financial discussions. What has yet to be talked much of openly is the call for a One World Government. This is what Biden is alluding to in his address. He sees himself as a member of that One World Government and thus his arrogance.

Share

Bonus Army: US Military Attacks Demonstrating American War Veterans

Share

Background Checks for Scientists

Guest post by Jim Beers

(An article written recently for The Pen, the newsletter of Common Sense Coalition Talk Radio program out of California, Missouri.)

As the debate on requiring background checks for gun sales rages, I submit that background checks should be mandatory for scientists that sell their research to government bureaucracies.

A recent news article in The Washington Post (of all places) describes a former scientist at Johns Hopkins University that became embroiled in the controversy over growing scientific research retractions coinciding with the competition for available government grant dollars.

The tainted and slanted research that was going increasingly unquestioned, concerned cancer drugs and genetic relationships. The scientist found that questioning results based on incomplete testing and ignoring applicable factual references resulted in his being disciplined, his eventually being fired and the suicide of a colleague asked to verify the unverifiable science purported to be reliable.

The number of research articles retracted in the field of biomedical research has increased “tenfold since 1975”. Two thousand of these retracted scientific papers were reviewed and it was determined that “67% were attributable to misconduct, mainly fraud or suspected fraud”. While government grant availability has increased since the 1960’s, when 2 out of 3 requests were funded: today only one out of 5 requests are funded. Because jobs and funding for the researchers are really what is on the line today, shoddy and cheap “science” to give government grant administrators what they want is the only guarantor of future funding preferences.

If potentially human life-threatening aspects of cancer drugs relative to the genetics of those afflicted with cancer can be misrepresented, what is sacred anymore? Eventual lawsuits by wealthy families suspecting misuse of drugs or malpractice as the cause of losing a loved one might well punish these “scientists” publishing misleading and self-serving results. Yet these charlatans are evidently not deterred. If this is so, what about all the environmental/animal “rights” “science” purchased by government since “the 1960’s”?

When “science” tells us that logging “must” be stopped; or grazing is “bad”; or hunting “unbalances the environment”; or predators “balance” the environment; or “native” species “belong” everywhere; or dams “must” be removed; or roads “disturb” grizzly bears; or fatal attacks by predators are the “fault” of those killed; or lethal control of predators is “ineffective”; or pipelines “disturb” species X; or sage grouse are “in danger”; or bats are “disappearing”; or wildfires are “good”; or Sanctuaries and Wilderness are “beneficial”; or that only more federal jurisdiction over water or more federal land ownership or easement control of private property will do X, Y, and Z: other than pandering for more federal funding, what possible down side is there for unscrupulous ”scientists”?

When federally-protected grizzly bears kill hikers, no scientist or bureaucrat is responsible. Ditto when wolves decimate big game herds and force ranchers out of business and diminish the quality of rural life. Ditto when logging communities are decimated and unmanaged forests result in fewer and fewer of the critters supposedly saved by eliminating logging. Ditto when federal lands are closed to use and roads and access only to burn down and kill neighbors while their homes and belonging are destroyed. All the faulty environmental/animal “rights” “science” since “the 1960’s” has bred a national nightmare to rival the corruption of human life-saving biomedical research that has become less and less reliable.

Until and unless the federal-influence spigot to Universities and research organizations is turned way down or off, corruption is inevitable. The spigot won’t be turned off until the US Congress stops funding and writing laws that imagine laws and regulations that are triggered by or act only upon “science”. Think Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Animal Welfare Act, Wilderness Act, and other such laws that absolve all involved humans of any responsibility while pointing always to “science” as the reason and trigger for un-Constitutional and anti-human actions by a government of men supposedly bounded by a Constitution. This is an especially important matter for rural Americans today.

The federal laws will not be amended or repealed until we elect federal legislators that respect the Constitution and have our best interests at heart. Federal Legislators will not do the right thing until State Legislators and Governors stand their ground (think Wyoming and wolves as a role model here). State Legislators and Governors with our best interests at heart come from Local elected officials like Commissioners, Supervisors and Sheriffs. The time to get this food chain going is right now. I won’t repeat that old Chicago canard about “voting early and often” but I will say we have to vote and vote for this aspect of our lives and liberty. Letting bureaucrats and “scientists” rule us is akin to letting Druid priests read bones or Shamans stare into smoke as a basis for national decisions. As Dirty Harry once remarked about his boss’s breath mint “it ‘ain’t’ cutting it”

Jim Beers

13 March 2013
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.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Maine: LD1248: An Act To Establish Trail Standards In Deer Wintering Areas

Summary:
This bill directs the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in consultation with the Maine Land Use Planning Commission and the Commissioner of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, to adopt rules that establish standards for the construction of trails in deer wintering areas. This bill also directs the Maine Land Use Planning Commission to incorporate these standards for the construction of trails in deer wintering areas in the State’s land use standards.

LD1248
An Act to Establish Trail Standards in Deer Wintering Areas
This bill is to establish Standards for the Construction of Trails within Deer Wintering Areas (Designated P-FW sub districts) on private and public lands within the State of Maine to enhance the survival rate of the state’s overall deer herd.

The regulation/restriction of human intrusion by the incorporation of these Standards within the deer wintering areas is to prevent additional yet avoidable stresses to the states depleted deer herds, which have been and remain an important value to the State of Maine, both economically and to the heritage of its citizens. The current declined condition of the deer herd is the result of several factors including damaged wintering areas due to timber harvesting, predation by large populations of predators, loss of mast crops due to market development of mast crop wood, and the loss of habitat by land development. All of these contribute to the current deer population problem.

Another major stress to wintering deer herds is that of human impact which is the result of the rapidly developing recreational trails within Maine. Specifically, trails can negatively impact deer wintering areas in several ways, first by the users traveling through the deer yard areas, which can spook the deer causing them to expend valuable energy during a critical period of reduced metabolic rate. Humans appear to deer as a predator; as such the deer will expend critically needed energy to escape them. Second, these trails compress the snow pack which promotes the passage of predators into the deer yard. The volume of and impacts from humans entering the deer wintering areas during these critical winter months should be stopped.

The Standards were originally drafted by staff members of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (now the Land Use Planning Commission) and myself to become a Draft Rule Amendment to Protect Deer in Deer Wintering Area (P-FW) sub districts from disturbance in Chapter 10 (Land Use Districts and Standards) of the then Maine Land Use Regulation Commission. As areas designated as Deer Wintering Areas are found both within and outside of LUPC’s jurisdiction these Standards should be enacted state wide to best protect the states deer herd.

As more people other than sportsmen within the state are becoming aware of the true economical value that a viable deer herd has state wide, more private land owners and community owned parcels are seeking the help of IF&W staff in designating and enhancing deer wintering areas on both private and public lands. Others, who are developing various types of trails for recreational/commercial use, see the deer wintering areas as a “tourist attraction”. The influxes of those individuals into the deer wintering areas are a detriment to the deer herd and in time may lead to actual extinction of those using the area.

It is my intent that the existing trails of all types’ currently penetrating deer wintering areas would be grandfathered by this act, but no additional ones would be allowed that do not conform to these standards.

Respectfully,
David L. Miller

Standards for Trails within Deer Wintering Areas

Intended purpose of the Construction Standards are to:

*Increase protection of zoned deer wintering areas and Maine’s deer population by minimizing or otherwise eliminating new herd disturbances by recreational uses during winter months and minimizing transportation corridors for predators into those zoned deer wintering areas.
Deer go into a reduced metabolic rate (to slow down) so they don’t burn up calories during a critical 100 day period
*Increase opportunities for consultation with Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) to avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife and their habitats.
With permits required in a P-WF (fish & wildlife protection sub-district), it would cause the two parties to come together to eliminate or minimize any impact to the deer herd
*Increase protections within the P-FW subdistrict by restricting the types of trails that are allowed within a P-FW subdistrict

*Regulations are rare in regards to the protection of wildlife

*IF&W has never dealt with anything on this scale, standards would ensure consistency state wide
More Specific Info:
Trails constructed today include a much wider range of types and uses than those constructed in the past. The proposed designation and division of trails better aligns the Land Use Planning Commission definitions with current land uses and more appropriately match land use controls to the intensity of the specific use.
There currently are no specific designations of trail types in Maine, or the regulation or permitting of any that could impact protected sub-districts (sensitive areas of concern).

The need for Standards, for the Construction of Trails in areas of concern / critical habitat has been brought about by the fact that some organizations are currently targeting specific areas Zoned as Deer Wintering Areas (a subdistrict P-FW) to allow customers/users to see deer. A human (particularly on foot) is seen as a predator by the deer causing the animal(s) to flee resulting in excessive stress, thus affecting its ability to survive.
The purpose of establishing Standards for Trails is to regulate activities within an area of concern in a manner that produces no undue adverse impact upon the resources and users in that area.
This proposed change requires a permit for all trails within the P-FW subdistrict in order to provide LUPC & MDIFW oversight and opportunity to avoid or mitigate impacts upon these resources.

Prior to construction of a trail, MDIFW and the MNAP shall be consulted with if a Level B and/or Level C would be located within a Fish and Wildlife Protection (P-FW) Subdistrict

There are four categories of trails to be established.
These are:
Trail, Level A:
A route or a path, other than a Level B or C Trail, roadway, or water trail with a travel surface width of less than 4 feet. Level A trails are developed and maintained with hand tools, and designed to facilitate human foot, ski, snowshoe, or non-motorized bicycle traffic only.
(Examples include – hiking & nature trails, mountain biking trails, portage trails, residential paths to waterbodies, etc.)
Trail, Level B:
A route, other than a Level A or C Trail, roadway, or water trail with a travel surface width of less than 6 feet, used for travel on foot, ski, snowshoe, motorized and non-motorized bicycle, equestrian, musher, snowmobile or ATV.
(Examples include – hiking & nature trails, mountain biking trails, portage trails, residential paths to waterbodies, ATV trails, snowmobile trails, and any use other than 4×4 jeep trail that meets specified dimensional criteria)

Trail, Level C:
A route, other than a Level A or B Trail, roadway, or water trail with a travel surface width less than 10 feet designed for one or two lane passage, used for travel on foot, ski, snowshoe, motorized or non-motorized bicycle, equestrian, musher, snowmobile, ATV, 4×4 vehicles, or other mechanized equipment. Level C trails may include travel surfaces wider than 10 feet provided the travel surface is not compacted or otherwise hardened, such as snowmobile trails.
(Examples include – hiking & nature trails, mountain biking trails, portage trails, ATV trails, snowmobile trails, and jeep/4×4 trails, and any other trails that meet the specified dimensional criteria)

Trail, Water:
An aquatic route, such as streams, rivers, bogs, ponds, lakes and other bodies of water, by which various forms of watercraft may travel. Watercraft may include, but are not limited to rafts, canoes, kayaks, motorized or non-motorized boats, or barges. Water trail does not include any associated trails on land as defined herein as any other type of “Trail”.
(Examples include – the water potion of the Arnold Trail, The Northern Forest Canoe Trail, whitewater rafting routes, etc. Water trails do not include any associated trails on land, such as but not limited to portage trails.)

Share

$1.40 A Gallon Gas Tax Proposed by IMF

Watch and listen to this video very carefully. There is so much said, implied and not said in this that it is almost mind blowing. For the uninformed, pay attention that first the commentators laugh at this idea and then any seeming outrage has to do with how it will economically affect the poor. Little is said about the act itself and that it comes from the International Monetary Fund. Should these two guys have mentioned that in Cyprus, bank accounts are tapped to steal money to pay for government programs? Shhhhhhhh! I must keep my job.

And mind you this is happening at a time when only the brain dead, “True Believers” still believe the globe is warming due to fossil fuel use. This tax, they lie and tell us, is about saving the environment. I wonder which environment they are targeting?

Share

Animal Rights Groups Now Millions of Dollars Poorer

From the Wall Street Journal.

“Judge Sullivan ruled that animal-rights organizations that sued Feld Entertainment, producer of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, must pay Feld’s attorneys fees. The plaintiffs included the Animal Welfare Institute and the Fund for Animals. Feld says it has spent more than $20 million on a legal circus that began in 2000 with claims that Ringling was abusing its elephants.”

Snicker!

Share