March 22, 2019

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:


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

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.

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.

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.)


$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?


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.”



Homeland Security/FEMA Bill “Classified”

And how many Americans are going to be killed? This is America, isn’t it? I’m also wondering if Congress gets to know the “classified” parts of this bill before casting a vote?


Pro Choice?


Government: Only Places We Can Cut are ‘Entitlement’ Programs

Really? Here’s a list. It’s real from 2011. These cuts have been proposed, but how many of them have been cut? None. Instead they want your Social Security and Medicare.

Sources: Here and here and here.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years


The Relentless Grip of Totalitarian Thought


Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines “Totalitarian” as: “of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism), ” in addition: “completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency.”

Totalitarianism is defined as the political system implementing the above definition. Most believe that a mere despotic ruler, such as George W. Bush and/or Barack H. Obama (relating only to modern times), are the authors of totalitarianism and those who foment this repression of individuality, while delimiting the need for distinct and unique thought. In fact, despotic rulers most often are simply reaping the harvest of the crop planted before them.

Eric Hoffer, in his book, The True Believer, says, “No matter how vital we think the role of leadership in the rise of a mass movement, there is no doubt that the leader cannot create the conditions which make the rise of a movement possible. He cannot conjure a movement out of the void. There has to be an eagerness to follow and obey, and an intense dissatisfaction with things as they are, before movement and leader can make their appearance.”

For certain, totalitarianism is a movement and absolutely Barack Obama did not invent it. It just so happens that he has a mass of people that have been prepared; he has an ardent following begging to be led having been poorly educated, by design, to deny individualism through governmental subordination; he also has the intense dissatisfaction (recalling the national mindset at the conclusion of the Bush years.) with the way things are. And now the people are ripe. They want someone to lead them, tell them what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Barack Obama has a weak and submission mass to true believers that he can and does mold as clay.

Can anyone left with a vein of thought deny that every aspect of an American’s life is regulated?

Complete independence is the pinnacle of freedom. Individual freedom threatens totalitarianism; it threatens the posterity of the bloodlines of elite entitlement. Independence includes independent thought, that results in asking questions. This also becomes a threat.

We have learned that the manipulation of the mind is not a new concept. Unfortunately a scientific concept of mind control was used for all the wrong reasons. Brainwashing sets the stage for the totalitarian mind set. Through our schools, television, music, video games, books, news media, governmental agencies, non governmental agencies, we have all become products of a well-planned game of mind control. The goal is to get us to become useless robots, incapable of independent thought and ripe and ready for submission.

The many recent debates going on exemplifies the depth to which that described by Eric Hoffer above has taken over the people of this country. The planned attack on this society has readied us to submission. We are subordinate to government. Is it mere coincidence that with every action in our society, good or bad, has to be followed by calls for “something to be done?” With each “something to be done”, one more chip is taken out of our independence; one more ounce of freedom lost.

It’s easy to blame Barack Obama for all the seeming despotic and dictatorial actions he has taken but remember, he cannot do this alone. If what Hoffer tells us is true that a leader, “cannot conjure a movement out of the void” then it only stands to reason that this society’s readiness has been long in the making.

Can we reverse it?


Obama Email: Make Sure To Pretend Sequester Really Hurts


“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”<<<Read More from the Washington Times>>>


Government Scientist Fired For Asking Questions About Klamath Dam Removal

When you watch this video, pay close attention to what Dr. Paul Houser, the man who got fired for asking questions about scientific integrity, says when he is responding directly about the event. The video seems to be focusing on the government’s wrongdoing in firing Dr. Houser, because of the Whistle Blowers Act, without pointing out what Dr. Houser says he was told by his boss at the Department of Interior.

Houser states that when he took his concerns to his boss he was told that “the Secretary wanted these dams removed,” and what he was doing was standing in the way of the goals of the Secretary of Interior. Dr. Houser doesn’t indicate that there is any discussion about whether his concerns for scientific integrity, i.e. that the science didn’t seem to qualify in the removal of dams to save fish, without destruction of environment and local economies, was part of the discussion.

We don’t know the full extent of what was discussed between Dr. Houser and his boss but this video seems to point out that science was at least secondary and that the Secretary wanted the dams removed.

And that is pretty much what has become of politically-driven science.