September 2, 2014

American enslavement to the Endangered Species Act in violation of Equal Protection and 13th Amendment

Antebellum USA: With slavery, we did the plantation owners’ bidding for nothing.
If we did not, we were punished.

21st Century USA: With the Endangered Species Act, we do the bureaucrats’ bidding for nothing.
If we do not, we are punished.

And we get to pick neither our plantation owners nor our bureaucrats.

And they both ignore our wishes, desires, dreams and rights.

Habitatism* is the priority of the habitat (the Marxist commune) over sacred individual Constitutional rights to be free from slavery. It’s a bad idea to get fatalistic and idly wait around to find out if modern slaves to habitatism can withstand $10,000 per day fines any better than 10 lashes per day for not doing the overseers’ bidding.

The time to reign in the Neo-Nazi Progressive Administrative State is now by changing a number of statutes in order to impose an effective two-strikes-and-you’re-out-of-a-government-job-for-life rule. No disbarment from the practice of law for administrative law judges whose decisions are overruled on constitutional grounds. If the judge is incapable of following the conceptually simple oath of office, then it’s time to find a private sector job.

Ayn Rand warned that the concept of the common good leads to enslavement. Now I see how.

*Habitatism is not a word right now, but we’ve been living under this concept for the past 40 years since the 1973 passage of the Endangered Species Act. Even in biblical times, 40 years is a long time. It’s time to find our way out of the wilderness.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Discussion of Habitatism refined

To some, the stupid nonsense of the 1973 Endangered Species Act claims to elevate the habitat needs of the subhuman to the same level of human needs. But experience proves that compromise is not possible, that one or the other wins the irreconcilable conflict, and for the past 40 years the needs of the subhuman win out over the needs of some 315 million Americans.

For example, any one of the some 315 million Americans could own preference grazing rights in Nevada. And a Nevada rancher’s preference grazing rights were superior to any competing grazing rights of all other humans on the face of the earth. But under the ESA, the human rancher’s preference grazing rights were not superior to the needs of the subhuman tortoise in Nevada. In such dehumanizing struggles, it is instructive to note that the victims of the holocaust were also denied their property rights, their dignity, their human rights. While Marx described property as theft, our Founders described property rights as human rights.

Under the ESA, the concept of habitat for subhumans is indistinguishable from the dominance of the greater good of the fascist Communist commune over sacred individual human rights set out in the US Constitution. Those sacred individual rights include the strict forbiddance of the taking of private property without just compensation. A time may well return when bureaucrats who use regulation to violate the law will be held personally liable for conduct deemed unlawful. Such personal liability may well extend also to those who aid, abet, encourage and contribute to causes that promote the dehumanization of the American public. When one person’s rights are trumped by militaristic bureaucratic centralized control, the bell tolls for all 315 million of us.

Readings from “The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers”, Scott, 1902, make clear that the fundamental law of our Constitutional form of government is based on a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to legislatively alter. Congress has no authority to fundamentally change humans-first public policy either by expressly setting out radically new public policy as it purports to do in the Endangered Species Act any more than it has the authority to put fascist Nationalism, the Communist commune, the environment, Mother Earth, Gaia, Martians or mythical characters in priority over our human civil rights.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Could Semantics Disarm America?

There is much ado about information that President Obama plans to bypass Congress and the American people in crafting a treaty, that’s a non treaty, with the United Nations on global warming. According to The New American report by Alex Newman, “The radical strategy primarily involves semantics and legal quackery: Instead of calling the controversial scheme a “treaty,” the White House is pursuing what it calls an international “accord.””

One would have to wonder how deeply the game playing of semantics would or could go. The U.S. Constitution, for as little as it applies to the citizens of the United States, says that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If semantics are used so President Obama can fulfill his puppet obligations of kow-towing to the United Nations on global warming, would his action legally become a “treaty?”

Should this happen, i.e. Congress refuses to stop the president and the Supreme Court agrees to recognize any such “accord” as a binding “treaty,” consider the consequences. They are too numerous to even fathom.

In keeping within the context of this website, then I would suspect next in line would be an “accord” to disarm America.

As I have said many times, the only last remaining deterrent to dictatorial tyranny in this country is the fact that millions of Americans own millions of guns. Disarm America and it’s all over.

Have we cracked the nut of individual strict liability for gov’t bureaucrats involved in releasing dangerous animals in America?

It’s time to ask the question: Are wolves the chosen and specially selected de facto agents of the lawless bureaucrats? Shouldn’t the principle of strict liability apply to the individuals in their individual capacities for the negligent release of dangerous wild animals? Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” sets out considerable legal research with court precedent and history questioning every aspect of bureaucratic overreach of the burgeoning Administrative State and also deals with holding individual bureaucrats in government liable. And don’t forget the deep pockets of the NGOs who are also instrumental in the release of dangerous wild animals. Also don’t forget the deep pockets of a lot of donors who have specific knowledge about wolf releases, going on hikes in the wilderness to see the wolves, verbally encouraging the wolf releases, an activity that many rightfully compare to criminality. Aiding, abetting and encouraging unlawful behavior, behavior they should have known was very risky toward innocent victims such as ranchers and their property, can have legal consequences.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/25/u-s-government-releases-predators-against-its-own-people/

Check out 3. in the link below summarizing Gerry Spence’s use of strict liability to make Kerr-McGee liable for the negligent release of a dangerous substance. How difficult could it be to apply strict liability for the classic purpose, that is, the intentional release of a dangerous wild animal……………….

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724.html

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

What is the magic of individualism vs. other -isms? Habitatism?

To begin with, adding -ism to the end of the word can denote the priority of the something.

To the non-law trained person, just exactly what is the expression of individualism of the American revolution referred to in an earlier writing that cited the encyclopedic reference to Hegel? Individualism is the priority of the individual. It is not dangerous egoism or anarchy as Vladimir Putin and his ilk would have you believe.

In fact, consider the peaceful society that we live in pursuant to the Constitution which sets out the individual right to free speech, the individual right to travel, the individual right to worship, the individual right to a jury trial, the individual right to cross-examine our accusers, the individual right to be paid just compensation for property taken for government purposes, the individual right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the individual right to be free from the quartering of troops in our homes, the individual right to assemble and so forth.

Consider also that our public officials swear an oath to God to defend (an active verb) our Constitution.

J. Roberts elegantly described the freedom of speech as having benefits to the citizens that outweigh the burden on government in 559 US 460.

Now consider one of the opposite political philosophies, fascist nationalism for example, in which the nation comes first, usually in the form of the greater common good (the same thing that Texas’ own Office of Public Interest Council claims to represent).

The UN was quoted as saying regionalism must precede globalism. Think now of Texas’ own regional planning commissions planning our private property groundwater rights away.

If fascist nationalism is the priority of the nation, communism the commune, environmentalism the environment, then habitatism is the priority of the habitat over individual rights. In other words, habitatism rejects our sacred individual human rights. Those rights to privately control property make America the exception to the claimed inevitability of world-wide Communism.

Habitatism is functionally indistinguishable from regionalism, globalism, environmentalism, communism, fascist nationalism in that all of these -isms lead to the use of militaristic actions we saw in the 1980′s in Poland and in 2014 in the Nevada Ranch standoff.

If not for our watered-down constitutional law education, lawyers would have figured this out long ago. If not for my further self-education after law school I would not know that our Founders considered our individualism, our individual rights, to be sacred, and to be from our Maker, thereby establishing in the US Constitution a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to alter through the Endangered Species Act for as the Texas Supreme Court similarly found in 1943 in 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024, “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.”

Habitatism attempts to create through extralegal, supra legal and in an unlimited way through the increasingly questioned Administrative State, encumbrances that unlawfully subordinate all manner of legal rights including without limitation first lien mortgages (Deeds of Trust) on privately owned land otherwise held in fee simple title in Texas according to, and governed exclusively, by ancient land title law.

In my opinion, by approving the Endangered Species Act, President Nixon capitulated more than Vietnam to the cancer of Communist ideology in 1973.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Eight states have passed laws voiding federal firearms regulations

Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms – more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.

Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states’ rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.<<<Read More>>>

Bear Hunting is Maine Culture

And those who aim to remove that part of Maine’s culture do so for the purpose of destroying that culture by imposing their own totalitarian beliefs onto others. Perhaps it is best worded by Douglas Lawrence of Wilton, Maine in an editorial published in the Bangor Daily News(scroll down just a bit):

It is natural for people from away, with different cultures, to believe that their cultures are better and should replace the old ways of Maine people. When modern colonizers come with money, they can buy the land, dictate government policies and impose their new culture. Just as Europeans replaced 20,000 years of native culture here, so too do these new colonizers remake Maine culture.

Maine already suffers from an eroded culture. When a people whose traditions tell them to make a living as farmers, fishermen, loggers, hunters, trappers, or to make valuable things such as shoes or ships, are unable to live that life, they lose their direction, hope and self-worth. Anger, hopelessness, alcoholism, drug use and family abuse are all part of this downward spiral of a culture.

As Maine voters stare down the double barrel of a referendum, a fake one at that, shrouded behind all sorts of fake claims, mostly lies, about bears, bear hunting, humane treatment of animals and hunting ethics, they will be asked to make a decision as to whether or not they want to strip the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife of their tools necessary for the management of a healthy bear population. More importantly they will decide whether to destroy Maine culture and replace it with the perverted teachings of anti human, animal rights beliefs.

Most voters don’t understand bear hunting, never done it, and can only be persuaded by the propaganda and talking points spewed by both sides of the issue.

It has always amazed me at the degree of ignorance displayed by many who migrate to Maine from points south, many to escape the city life. Their claims are that they NEED to get away from the hustle and bustle, the noise, the regulations, the limitations and the overall “nastiness” of urban dwelling. They head for Maine, are here for a short time and then begin to work hard at making it exactly the way they left it behind them.

We all have our rights to opinions and beliefs. We think we have a right, brainwashed to believe in democracy as a means of protecting any rights, to force our own beliefs onto others. It is one of the very dark sides of democracy. The old saying is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what will be for lunch.

Minds have been twisted and demented to a point where perhaps a majority of people believe that animals have rights, feelings and the power to think and reason. We see this in everything in media today. Just last evening I was watching a program on television about an elephant and it was quite sad to listen to the perverse narration and talking points throughout the entire program. It was completely based on the humanization and rationalization of human nature projected onto and into an elephant’s life. What have we become?

Animals are an incredible thing but they are not human and do not have any human traits and yet we, as misled non thinkers, seem to think they are.

We have a responsibility to care for the resources God gave us – including the animals of the earth. Over the past near 100 years, here in the United States, we have done a remarkable job of caring for our wild animals, to a point now that we have too many of them in certain places. We have devised ways to fund the conservation of wild animals and created and protected habitat for them to live mostly healthy lives and yet these totalitarians want to change that. They lie to tell others it doesn’t work and that animals have rights and feelings, so blinded by this insanity that they are seemingly more willing to have too many animals starve to death or suffer from disease than to humanely die by the quick death of a hunter’s bullet. This tells us the effort is not about the welfare of animals but the destruction of culture and all that is good and traditional.

As part of the hunting culture, something that has been a part of the landscape since the first settlers who came to this land, for all of us there once was the personal choice, within the laws that govern wild game harvest, to decide our own ethic when it comes to the methods we choose to harvest game. Contrary to what some are being taught, wild animals, a resource for the American people, are crafty creatures and as such, since the beginning of time, man has had to devise ways to make the job of putting food on the table easier. In addition, wildlife managers, through implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, regulate hunting and hunting harvest and the tools that can be used in that pursuit for the purpose of maintaining a healthy population of game.

Ethics in the context of hunting then becomes a sticky subject. Remaining within the laws that govern the sport, we must all decide, on our own I wish, how we would like to hunt and not have some other do-gooder, who thinks he knows what’s better for me than himself, tell me what is an ethical way to hunt.

A reader sent to me a link to a discussion among hunters about the ethics of baiting bears. Posted below is a copy of some of those comments.

Number1

Number2

Number3

And for perhaps far too many, what they have been convinced to be “tradition” isn’t in the same neighborhood as the tradition that carries value with it.

FreakShow

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today's administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Wolf Meeting and Talking Points Expanded Boundary

All content comes from an email source:

Wolf meeting tomorrow, 8-13-14 at the TorC civic center. Public input meeting at 6 PM; information session from fish nd wildlife service at 2 PM. [This is]About the new proposed draft rule and Environmental Impact Statement the rule is based on. Please come and speak if you can. Map and short zone explanation attached. Talking points attached.

Designate three wolf management zones with a larger Zone 1 within the expanded MWEPA:
• Zone 1 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to occupy and where wolves may be initially released or translocated. Zone 1 would include all of the Apache and Gila National Forests (the existing BRWRA) and any or all of the Sitgreaves National Forests; the Payson, Pleasant Valley, andTonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest; and the Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest.
• Zone 2 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy and where wolves may be translocated. In Zone 2 initial releases of wolves on Federal land would be limited to pups less than five months old. Pups less than five months old, juvenile wolves and adult wolves could also be initially released on private land under Service and state approved management agreements with private landowners and on tribal land under Service approved management agreements with tribal governments.Zone 2 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone 1or 3 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico
• Zone 3 is an area where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy but where neither initial releases nor translocations would occur. Zone 3 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone1 or 2 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico.

ZoningMap

Mexican wolf Draft EIS and Rule Change

Talking points for Agriculture

1. Any population change in the wolf recovery program must be based on a recovery plan that has been published in the federal register and vetted by the public . The most recent recovery plan in place meeting those requirements is the 1982 plan. None of the ongoing attempts at recent planning have been subject to peer review in accordance with 59 Fed. Reg. 34207 July 1 1994

2. Recovery planning needs a defined number of wolves to allow the public to understand clearly the objectives of the recovery of Mexican wolves in the SW.

3. Livestock on federally administered grazing allotments are private property legally occupying the range to disallow take of wolves attacking livestock is wrong. Ranchers should be allowed to defend and protect their domestic animals regardless of land ownership, without having to beg for a permit.

4. FWS isn’t using best available science or information in the DEIS. Nowhere is there a requirement that county data and reports must be peer reviewed to be used by the agency in rulemaking. Thus far FWS has cited no data to support the finding of no significant impact to livestock community by this program, nor the harm that has been documented to the human element particularly the children in areas where wolves are present.

5. FWS failed to mitigate livestock depredation and ranch sales due to wolf depredation in wolf occupied areas. nothing in their draft suggests they will do so this time.

6. FWS has failed to mitigate the impacts to children in wolf populated areas, in fact have largely ignored the habituation problem of these wolves. There is very little in the DEIS and Draft Rule that allows for mitigation of these significant problems.

7. FWS has failed to consider cumulative effect of economic losses and social impacts when this program is coupled with all the other environmental planning that is going on in our state.

8. FWS has failed to address catastrophic affects on wolf habitat.

9. Cooperative agreements with private landowners to host wolves on private land can and likely will have significant impact on neighboring ranches domestic animals and the human element on adjacent private lands, this should not be available.

10. FWS must stay within the bounds of the DEIS and draft Rule, during the last rulemaking process, David Parsons significantly changed the draft rule and EIS and there was no public vetting of his teams decision-making. This DEIS cannot be significantly altered other than to incorporate ongoing comments in the current commenting cycle. Parsons now works for an environmental organization devoted to preserving predators.

Remember, DOW CBD WEG Sierra Club and all the other environmental and animal rights organizations, will be bussing in people to speak, crowding the comment session and complicating this meeting with public grandstandings perhaps even a howl in like they did in Albuquerque last year. It got them a cover on the Albuquerque Journal. If you are up to a little public grandstanding to ensure the media gets our side of the story feel free to do so, I have protest signs and we can stage a protest ourselves if necessary.

Public comment session, stick to realistic points similar to but not limited to those above, and the injustice and unfairness behind the management of the program.

There is no, No Wolves alternative, this program is far far beyond that issue the reality is, the courts have ruled this is legitimate. Even if there was a No Wolves alternative, and it was chosen, the population explosion we have now would allow the agency to immediately re-list this animal with full ESA status critical habitat and a no take policy under the ESA and there would be wolves out here forever with NO removals for problem animals and private property curtailment due to the critical habitat status.

Within the past year our association Gila Livestock Growers Assn. has tried to fulfill some basic scientific testing that would have allowed us the basis for petitioning for de-listing of this animal along with the de-listing of the northern population, our access to historic samples fell through and our time has run out to do it before the new rule is in place. We will have to undergo the rulemaking process and try to find historic samples for testing at a later date.

At this meeting, we have to show the agency they will not and cannot get away with pretending there is no significant impact to our communities and industries whether it’s tourism, ranching or outfitting. pick a subject stay on point ignore the hecklers. Prepare for bizarre and really bad behavior from the wolf support activists.

When I was in Albuquerque last November for the preliminary meetings someone sat next to me and handed me the prayer attached here. Please print it and take it with you if you need to.

Prayer

Impact on Ranchers by Wolves in New Mexico

What you will see in this video is a clear representation of the results of a perversion of ideals and a major screw-up of priorities. It should be viewed as a mental illness in order that some damned animal takes priority over human pursuit of happiness and the ability to protect property and run a business. It goes beyond perversion and enters the realm of criminal that mentally perverse sub-humans would issue death threats against others for protecting what is rightfully theirs.

And now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. Please contact your government representative and tell them to stop dumping these mongrel, nasty, disease-carrying, killing machines into the landscapes of Arizona and New Mexico.