August 1, 2014

Eschatology v. Scatology – The Study of Ends, But Different From The Other


God promises a perfect world in the afterlife.
Satan promises utopia (chiliastic Marxism) through government (central planning of private property) in this life.

I smell sulfur burning.


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

Von Mises Eschatology 001


Hijacking Dietary Guidelines (of all things!) for Politicial Gains

USDA’s Switch From Science-Based Nutrition Advice to Green Agenda Harms Americans

Health Policy Expert Warns Against Politicization of Diet Advice

Issues Such as Climate Change Don’t Belong in Government Policymaking About Healthy Eating, Says Health Policy Expert Jeff Stier

New York, NY/Washington DC – The naming of an “environmental nutritionist” to a top USDA nutrition post is drawing fire from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

In an op-ed published in Friday’s Des Moines Register, “Iowan’s USDA Appointment Raises Concern,” Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier writes, “The appointment of Iowa’s Angela Tagtow, a controversial ‘environmental nutritionist’ and local food activist, to head the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is causing more headaches for the agency, already facing criticism about politicization of federal nutrition advice and its consequences for public health.”

Stier earlier criticized the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and its work to establish new recommendations for federal nutrition policy. Stier’s concerns have been widely echoed over recent months, given the DGAC’s mission creep towards environmental activism. The DGAC is meeting this week in Washington.

In that context, “the appointment of ‘food crusader’ Angela Tagtow to a USDA position responsible for assessing and implementing the Committee’s recommendations is cause for serious concern,” says Stier.

In the op-ed, Stier writes, “By using the government’s official dietary guidelines as a tool to advance her well-established environmentalist agenda, Tagtow would undermine the USDA’s mandate – to provide families with science-based, impartial nutrition advice. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services administer the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which makes recommendations regarding the congressionally mandated Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines, currently being revised, are the basis for Federal food and nutrition programs and welfare benefits such as SNAP and educational campaigns, including MyPlate (formerly the Food Pyramid). The USDA touts them to be ‘authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.’”

Stier writes, “According to Politico, recent DGAC meetings raised eyebrows because ‘hot-button issues, such as diet and climate change’ are being discussed in an unprecedented way. The committee has even dedicated one of five subcommittees to ‘Food Sustainability and Safety’ to discuss how the food we eat contributes to climate change, and how the government should recommend changes to our diets based on those concerns.”

While Stier agrees that maintaining a food supply and environmental protection are important, he says, “these issues don’t belong in discussions of healthy eating. But that hasn’t stopped the DGAC from delving deeply into them over the past year. In the January meeting of the DGAC, committee member Miriam Nelson gushed about the importance of promoting foods that have the “littlest impact on the environment,” and invited testimony from sustainability expert Kate Clancy, who argued it would be “perilous” not to take global climate change into account when dispensing dietary advice.

Stier’s earlier criticism drew rebuke from the USDA, for being “premature.” In April, a USDA spokesperson seemed to back away from the row by minimizing DGAC’s role in policy-making, saying ,”the committee is still in the early stages of its work, so it is premature to guess what their recommendations might be, and even more premature to speculate about what will be included in the final dietary guidelines.”

That seems to have changed, Stier notes. “But the appointment of Tagtow to the USDA office responsible for not only developing and promoting the Dietary Guidelines, but advancing prominent programs such as MyPlate, the re-vamped version of the well-known food pyramid, suggests that the agency is doubling down on raising the profile of our diet’s alleged affect on the climate, and other issue that have more to do with political science, than nutritional science.”

Stier slams Tagtow’s firm’s mission statement as code language for politically charged activism.

Her firm’s goal was “to establish healthier food systems that are resilient, sustainable, ecologically sound, socially acceptable and economically viable…”

Stier points out that Tagtow has written that we should select meat and dairy products from animals that have only been fed grass diets.

In the op-ed, Stier challenges the USDA’s new nutrition expert for repeating the “myth that meat is an environmentally-reckless form of protein, suggesting a plant-based diet instead. She says we should reduce our consumption of meat, lean or not, not because of any potential health benefits, but in order to ‘conserve natural resources and energy.’”

Stier also debunks Tagtow’s alleged economic justifications for her radical agenda. “Tagtow has suggested that Iowans could improve the state’s economy by only eating food grown in the state, at least part of the year. She touted a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture study claiming that ‘if Iowans ate five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and Iowa farmers supplied that produce for three months of the year, these additional crops would add $300 million and more than 4,000 jobs to the Iowa economy.’”

“She fails to mention that in her utopian Iowa, residents wouldn’t likely enjoy the benefits of staples like oranges or pineapples for those months. Nor does she consider the devastation to Iowa’s agricultural community if her agro-protectionist ideals were implemented in other states. Well, now she’s headed to the federal government to promote her narrow ideology.”

Stier concludes, “The maxim that, in government, ‘personnel is policy’ is especially true here, given Tagtow’s policy-making role. The priorities she’s spent her career advancing are far from the consensus among mainstream nutritionists. Her appointment is a slap in the face to thousands of men and women in nutrition who daily work tirelessly and impartially to help Americans eat better. And it casts doubt over whether USDA is willing to dispense nutrition advice based on science rather than an activist agenda.”

Stier has written on this issue in the past, raising concerns over the Committee’s direction in a March piece in the Washington Examiner and in the Daily Caller in April of this year. He is available for press requests on this issue.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and Al Jazeera America, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post , Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings, and testified at the United Nations (video here).

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

Reverse Invasion of Property

Reverse invasion of property
Marxist central control abolishes private property rights

This morning I heard on the Chad Hasty Show talk about the “need” for some sort of environmental study regarding the sonic booms in Midland and their effect on the prairie chicken aka pinnated grouse.

Hunting with even light shotgun bird loads for dove in grouse habitat causes sonic booms as the projectile breaks the sound barrier, yet, I’ve never before heard any such ridiculous objection.

The recently proposed Federal Register regulations say that no invasion of the properties will occur as a part of their [Marxist top-down central] “planning” [and control].

Those proposed regulations, 79 Federal Register 27060 and 27052, can be easily found with a google or bing search. The comment period for one of them ends tomorrow, 11 July 2014.

Prohibiting sonic booms on land adjacent to grouse breeding grounds seems like a reverse invasion of property. I’ve never heard of a reverse invasion before but I have heard of reverse condemnation. In addition, their low-level population surveys invade private property, so the Fed Register regs are based on a lie. There I said it.

How are they going to cite people for violations without invading the private land? We know full well the regulations constitute an illegitimate Marxist taking.

If there are no meaningful remedies in the administrative system (Progressive Kangaroo Court), then the long term benefits of correctly tying Marxist Socialism (Communism) to the Endangered Species Act when applied to private property are obvious. Since 1973 this nonsense has been going on. Even for biblical times, 40 years is long enough to wander the communist wilderness. It’s time to find our way out. Learn how to say No.

Ludwig von Mises figured all this out and published his analysis in 1951. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. It’s not rocket science. It’s time to start saying No.

“Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined the
proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.”

Regurgitated Lies and Gobbledygook

Guest post by James Beers:

COMMENTS ON THE SPEECH BY THE EMINENT LUC BAS OF IUCN IN THE PRECEDING LINK. This speech should be quickly recognizable to Americans as the lies (the correct word) and gobbledygook regurgitated in our Nation by federal bureaucrats, State bureaucrats, “Defenders” of Wildlife, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Humane Society of the US, Center for Biological Diversity, et al. The only thing missing is the “ranchers” in their cowboy hats and the hunters” in their camouflage clothes holding bows and arrows behind the speaker to show how EVERYONE supports the poison being spewed forth.

The following ITEMS (I) are from the (call it what you will) by Luc Bas. My Comment (C) follows each Item:

1. (I) “The European Commission launched a multi-stakeholder platform.”

(C) These government entities and the radical groups that are integrated into them dump the wolves (bears, cougars, jaguars, wolverines, etc.) on the public, give those living with and harmed by these animals NO SAY or NO RECOURSE under pain of draconian penalties and then “launch a multi-stakeholder platform” (“working group”, “partnership”, “regulatory review”, etc./etc.) firmly controlled by themselves and their allies and feed it to the public like giving candy to a starving child. It may taste good but it changes NOTHING!

2. (I) Large Carnivores “have made a dramatic recovery across Europe and numbers have now reached around 40,000, with most of the populations stable or increasing. This is mainly due to favourable national and international policies protecting large carnivores, such as the EU Habitats Directive.”

(C) “Favourable national and international policies protecting large carnivores, such as the EU Habitats Directive”? Let’s be honest: it isn’t “policies” increasing carnivores; it is draconian laws and punishments for rural Europeans that do anything other than meekly submit to indignities; property losses; human safety threats; disease threats; and the ultimate loss of family security, rural economic life, and the traditional freedoms to follow their cultural heritage and continue using the renewable natural resources that abound throughout Europe. Throwing bouquets to the EU about their “Habitats Directive” is like Defenders of Wildlife complimenting “useful idiots” like the “ranchers” and “hunters” pictured in their “working groups”. All it indicates is a rare but truer picture of who your enemies are in what is going on.

3. (I) “It is rare that a conservation success becomes a challenge to human activity – usually, the opposite is the case.”

(C) “Rare??” What is he smoking? Wind farms kill millions of birds annually. Climate change claptrap increases energy costs prohibitively and reduces available heating and cooling. Solar mirror energy fields eliminate everything under them while we are supposed to get overwrought by some caws grazing nearby. Environmental nonsense opposes nuclear energy while destroying dams for power and irrigation. Farming over millions of acres is either eliminated or regulated into oblivion for smelt and darters. Ranchers are driven off the land and even to suicide for wolves, bears. Illegal Immigrant routes are kept open for jaguars. Wilderness Declarations waste Billions of dollars of renewable natural resource use and rural economies annually. I could go on here but my two fingers are getting sore. Name some of those “success: stories and then we can talk!

4. (I) “When it comes to large carnivores, not everyone is as delighted to see the return of wolves and bears to their neighbourhood.”

(C) Wow, an understatement. Who are they? How many are there? Are they the ones living with and affected by your “conservation success”? Do you plan to do anything other than justify trips, per diem meals, overnight lodgings at some spa about them. Truth be told, you say “not everyone” because the real number and the depth of their objections are far more than you can afford to recognize or mention.

5. (I) “It is understandable that the presence of large carnivores in areas where humans live, work and recreate can cause a variety of conflicts, such as depredation on livestock (and semi-domestic reindeer in Scandinavia), interaction with hunters, as well as social and cultural conflicts related to broader tensions between rural and urban areas.”

(C) How erudite! Anyone expressing how it is “understandable” is either someone to work with or some patronizing overlord that does not deign to change anything. A quick pat on the head and back to your village and outdated lifestyles, get on now! How about human attack dangers from wolves? How about wolves as Disease and Infection vectors to humans, domestic animals and other wildlife? How about wolves as destroyers of rural traditions, cultures and lifestyles? How about urban residents leaving rural carnivore management and decisions to those rural residents affected and in return rural residents will tolerate urban crime leniencies that disturb rural Europeans (and Americans)?

6. (I) The Honorable Luc Bas lauds the “set up by the European Commission’s DG Environment to facilitate constructive dialogue among key stakeholders including farmers, conservationists, landowners and hunters. The aim is to find commonly agreed solutions to conflicts arising from people living and working in close proximity to these large animals.”

(C) The “constructive dialogue among key stakeholders” is reminiscent of the old Soviet Show Trials where the illusion of justice and the common man deciding the verdict masked the brutal reality of tyranny. These guys appoint the “stakeholders” and marginalize any dissent as hopeless ignorance by non-conformists.

7. (I) “Already today, there are many positive examples of peaceful coexistence of humans with large carnivores across Europe, even in relatively densely populated and farmed areas. Much can be done to find solutions, from reinstating some long-forgotten shepherding practices to installing modern electric fences. Of course, due to the long absence of large carnivores, readopting the former practices can be a major challenge for social, cultural, economic and logistical reasons. This requires willingness to change, as well as technical assistance and economic support.”

(C) There he goes again with the “many positive examples of peaceful coexistence”. Were he to engage in a public discourse about his “examples” with some rural advocate with gumption and not someone hand-picked by him, his vague references would be shown to be not only “vague” but purposefully misleading. However the real peek at the danger here is the phrase “willingness to change”. Do you think IUCN will “change”? The EU? Environmentalists? Animal “rights” advocates? Teachers? The media? How about the sheep herders and the hunters and the rural dog owners and the rural lifestyles and the rural economies and rural traditions and the use of renewable natural resources for human benefit? If you answered “YES” to the first six, you are a fool. If you answered “YES” to the last seven you get an “A”. Finally, never doubt with this bunch of do-gooders, “change” means eradication as surely as the Etruscans, Mandans and other historic curiosities are little mentioned in the no longer taught History books.

8. (I) “Reintegrating large carnivores into the fabric of the European countryside therefore requires making a number of adjustments to practices of many sectors. It also requires dialogue and sharing of both positive and negative experiences with all the groups affected.”

(C) Reread the last ½ of 7 (C) above. Guess who must make a “number of adjustments”? One is reminded of how years ago in Utah, someone condemned to die was given the choice of shooting by a firing squad or hanging. In its own way that might qualify as a limited “stakeholder platform” with “constructive dialogue” by an “understanding” authority!

9. (I) “This laudable initiative to foster a positive dialogue.”

(C) Years ago when I was a practicing bureaucrat I tried to learn how to pat myself on the back like all those boys and girls that got the big bucks. It is harder than it looks and all it ever seemed to result in was sore back and a sore arm that kept me from playing catch for a period of time. To call this meaningless blather is to accord it undue respect.

10. (I) “We have thus long experience in finding common ground. Dialogue, facilitation and convening different stakeholders is in IUCN’s DNA.”

(C) Common ground is what Germany “found” with Poland in 1939 and China “found” with Tibet in 1950 and again in 1959. And, in this one regard and statement The IUCN and all its bedfellows mentioned in the introductory paragraph of this commentary about how they mask their agenda ARE TELLING THE TRUTH!

So what does all this make me? Since Mr. Bas is a male, I must not be a sexist. Since Mr. Bas is not a minority, I must not be a racist. Since I advocate Local Government control of Local wildlife, I must not be anti-government. Since I am on old bureaucrat with a long pedigree and a Congressional Fellow, I must not be too dull to understand the complexities of government. Since I am an experienced federal and state wildlife biologist, wildlife law enforcer, refuge manager, member of US Delegations dealing with EU Fur/Trapping Banners, and attendee at UN Wildlife Conferences in New York and Nairobi; I must have some grasp of what I am saying here. Since I am a former US Navy Officer that served on board a ship in the western Pacific and ashore on the Aleutian Island of Adak, I must not be unduly harsh though I am breaking one golden rule about not “admonishing in public.”

What I am is a guy with some knowledge and experience that thinks human concerns trump animal concerns and that governments that cater to urban fantasies that harm rural realities are no different than governments that rule for the benefit of those few that keep them in power and the rest of us be damned!

Jim Beers
8 July 2014

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.

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

Supreme Court Brief Filed Seeking Clarification on Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Black Conservatives File Supreme Court Brief Asking Justices to Clarify Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Case Could Set Major Precedent for Race and Regulation

Court Accepted Two Similar Cases Settled Before Consideration — It’s Time for Court to Finally Rule on the Issue

Washington, DC – With the U.S. Supreme Court finished handing down opinions for its recently-completed term, members of the Project 21 black leadership network joined a legal brief that was recently filed with the Court that asks the justices to finally resolve the vexing issue of disparate impact claims regarding the Fair Housing Act and government-subsidized housing.

“Project 21 and the other organizations joined on this brief believe it is vital to bring this crucial test of disparate impact before the Supreme Court,” said Project 21 member Hughey Newsome, an industry professional in the field of financial planning. “The notion that disparate impact claims can go beyond the intent of the authors of laws and with the only burden of proof for the accused is, in itself, disproportionate harm. And, regardless of the purpose, it sets a dangerous precedent. Once such a precedent is set, it seems there is really no limit to what can be done in the name of justice.”

Project 21′s legal brief asks the justices to accept the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. for its upcoming term. In the case, ICP claims the state agency violated the Fair Housing Act by allocating housing tax credits to developers in a manner they say effectively keeps minorities in low-income minority-majority neighborhoods rather than giving them access to housing opportunities in wealthier majority-white communities in the Dallas metropolitan area. ICP charged the department’s tax credit distribution policy creates a disparate impact on black recipients of such credits.

The case is on appeal from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The framers of our government pledged to us a society based on a simple premise — that every American would be treated equally under the law. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments made clear that this concept applied in matters of race,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and is a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. “The disparate impact doctrine runs counter to this notion and, in particular, it does so where racial lines are involved. If we’re going to permanently end the temptation by government to divide us into racial groupings, we’ve got to return to the principles embodied in our Constitution and the color-blind policy advocated by Martin Luther King.”

In the Project 21 brief, which was written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Individual Rights Foundation and Reason Foundation, it is argued that the Fair Housing Act was written “to apply solely to disparate treatment, not acts having disparate impact on protected classes.” It is argued that the U.S. Supreme Court must “consider the threshold question of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act” since “disparate impact claims do not depend on the intent of the action or policy.”

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice accepted cases similar to the case now being advocated by Project 21. The other cases, Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and Magner v. Gallagher, were removed from the Court’s schedule after they were settled prior to argument.

“Politically-motivated settlements in the past have kept the justices from ruling on this important question of whether or not the Fair Housing Act should be officially expanded to apply to the impact of policies and not just outright discrimination as was envisioned by the lawmakers who crafted it,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Supreme Court would be wise to take this opportunity to finally tackle this important question.”

Citing the fact that appellate court jurisdictions have already tried to resolve this issue, but have formulated different ways in which to deal with claims, the Project 21 brief points out that “[r]esolution of the question by this case would end the diversity of results that occur when different jurisdictions analyze substantially similar disparate impact claims.” Furthermore, “[s]ubjecting government defendants to disparate impact claims pressure them into engaging in unconstitutional race-conscious decisionmaking to avoid liability for such claims.”

“Lower courts try to answer this tricky question, and the result is a patchwork quilt of different remedies. Civil rights law cannot change from region to region. The Supreme Court needs to determine if such enforcement is even constitutional, and then — if it is — create a uniform way to deal with it,” said Project 21′s LeBon.

Project 21′s Cooper added: “It is one thing for the law to say that no person may be mistreated due to their race, but it is something alien and distinct to say that merely because of their race they’ll receive different treatment.”

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer membership comes from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Texas Teenager Cyber Attacked After Posting Hunting Photos

Press Release from The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance:

(Columbus, OH) – A 19-year-old Texas Tech cheerleader is the latest female hunter to be attacked by animal rights groups after she posted photos of her successful African safari on Facebook.

Kendra Jones, from Cleburne, Texas has been hunting with her father since she was a child, including being on a safari when just six years old. Her latest hunt however has brought her a wave of Facebook attacks, including death threats.

Those included “Come to South Africa and try to hunt our endangered animals, you will be shot on sight and believe me, there will be celebrations.” “I hope you get eaten by a lion, you cow,” and “How about we have a real hunger games? I vote we hunt this horrible woman down first.”

Anti-hunters have also created “the official Kendall Jones Hate Page” on Facebook.

But even these attacks have not deterred her thoughts on hunting.

In an interview with a Houston television station, she said she always gives the meat to local villagers, but does not want to give up her hobby. In fact, she is pursuing a reality television series about her passion. She stated that all of her kills were the result of fair chase.

Jones is the latest female hunter targeted for her passion, but certainly not the first.

Charisa Argys, a Colorado native, legally harvested a mountain lion and posted the photo online with her father. An animal rights activist from Germany led a campaign to spread it to dozens of Facebook pages and Internet sites belonging to international anti-hunting organizations. The floodgates opened with specific threats targeting her physical appearance, her life and her family.

“I have never been called so many horrible, hateful names in my life,” said Argys. “They went so far as to post my full name, address and directions to my house. It was awful.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has been working to help sportsmen fight cyber harassment from animal rights extremists by building support for them from the hunting community.

”It is never okay to harass and even assault someone simply because they choose to live their life differently.” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “Unfortunately anti-hunters clearly lack this basic value and have decided to use their keyboards to attack law-biding hunters.”

Whereas Jones and Argys are not hunting celebrities, some of the recent attacks have targeted high profile hunters as well.

Jana Waller, host of Skull Bound TV on Sportsman Channel, was recently barraged by activists after also posting photos online. She is undaunted by the criticism.

“It’s a shame that people who know nothing about hunting and conservation feel the need to spew insults and threats regarding a topic they obviously are uneducated about,” said Waller. “Without hunters’ dollars spent in Africa, there would be catastrophic effects on the vast majority of their animal populations.”

“Trying to explain that hunters are true animal lovers is like trying to explain algebra to a two-year old. They’re just not going to get it,” she added.

Another high profile hunter, Melissa Bachman, outdoor TV host and producer, came under attack after posting a photo of a male African lion she legally harvested while on a safari. Anti-hunters quickly took to social media to attack Bachman, labeling her as an “animal murderer.” Other posts included “I hope you die alone – losers.”, “I wish to have some money and kill you all myself” and “If I have the opportunity I will put a rifle inside Melissa’s mouth and I will shoot.”

“Each and every hunter needs to band together and support one another in our rights as hunters” said Bachman. “What the antis fail to comprehend is that if it weren’t for sportsmen and women, populations of game and non-game species plus the lands they inhabit would be in dire straits today, period.”

Anti-hunters wrath hasn’t been focused just on individuals. Organizations such as USSA and Dallas Safari Club have received threats and media outlets such as have as well.

“We have received death threats towards us and other people we have posted on our site,” said Kevin Paulson, owner of “The antis are especially venomous toward women and those who are hunting big game such as cats in Africa and the U.S. “

As the cyber threats to female hunters and others continue to escalate, so to have the efforts to protect these innocent victims.“As an organization with the sole mission to protect hunting, fishing and trapping, we see it as our responsibility to step up and lead the effort to put an end to cyber harassment of sportsmen,” added Pinizzotto. “We are currently working with a number of conservation partners and key individuals to do just that.”

Facebook Shuts Down Skull Bound TV Page for 24-Hours for Ethical Harvest Photo

Press Release from U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance:

(Columbus, OH) – Skull Bound TV, a popular hunting and fishing show on The Sportsman Channel, has been shut out of their Facebook page for 24-hours with no access to add new content after a standard post was said to not follow “Facebook Community Standards.”

The post in question showed a 7-foot black bear harvested on a do-it-yourself hunt by Jim Kinsey, director of the show, after “one of the most incredible hunts of our lives” according to Jana Waller, host of Skull Bound TV.

The post made by Waller showed Kinsey sitting proudly behind his legal harvest.

“Tears were flowing after 28 years of searching for this kind of Montana bruin,” Waller told USSA. “We were given no explanation for why it was removed. We hunt ethically and in good taste and we feel violated.”

According to the social network: “The conversation that happens on Facebook – and the opinions expressed here – mirror the diversity of the people using Facebook.”

However, Facebook requires users to follow the “Community Standards” that include categories such as Violence and Threats, Self-Harm, Bullying and Harassment, Hate Speech, Graphic Content, and more, all of which do not set certain standards, but guidelines.

“The fact that Facebook removed Skull Bound’s post and photo that showcased an ethical hunt without any explanation is unacceptable,” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “Jana and Jim put a lot of hard work and passion into that hunt and they deserve to be able to share it.”

“Graphic Content” according to the standards is “when people share any content, we expect that they will share in a responsible manner. That includes choosing carefully the audience for the content.”

“Skull Bound in no way violated the Facebook Community Standards as they were simply sharing content their fans would like to see, as is stated in Facebook rules,” said Pinizzotto. “This appears the work of anti-hunters from behind computer screens.”

Waller is perplexed on why this particular post was flagged.

“This is our marketing page and it’s ridiculous that we can’t ‘share, promote or celebrate our hunting lifestyle because some “anti hunter” doesn’t like it. Simply stay off our hunting page if you don’t believe in hunting.” said Waller. “I can guarantee that I do more for animals through my conservation donations, purchasing hunting licenses and supporting our hunting heritage than 99 percent of anti hunters.”

A Suggestion for Rural Americans

Guest post by James Beers:

If you are a rural American that:

- Realizes that you are being harmed in many ways by a central government environmental/animal rights apparatus.

- Is concerned about what lies ahead in your community and County for your children and grandchildren as jobs dwindle, grazing and logging are eliminated and hunting and fishing are being vilified and abolished.

- Sees the expansion of government ownership and easement-taking as the ultimate threat to voiding your property rights and jeopardizing your and your family’s future.

- Doesn’t know who to turn to as urban voting blocs, both nationally and within your state, work with national and state politicians to vacate rural America and turn it into a government-controlled enclave by the use of unjust laws and bureaucrat-empowerment of regulatory tightening for personal their gain.

- Is rightly afraid of the human safety, property damage, diseases and impacts on rural American life posed by the introduction, protection and sanctification of uncontrolled and unmanaged predators like grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions and coyotes.

- Understands how Wilderness Declarations, expanding government-controlled lands and government bureaucrats that are no more than radical activists with both a disdain for American Constitutional government and human hegemony in the world causes increasingly common catastrophic fires with increasing destruction of homes, communities and lives.

- Knows that federal bureaucrats from US Fish and Wildlife Service manipulating unjust laws like the Endangered Species Act for the benefit of themselves, friendly politician’s re-election and radical Un-American agendas; to the BLM invading a Nevada ranch with all the equipment and tactics of a US Ranger attack on an Afghan village; to the current revelation of USDA buying submachine guns for unstated purposes, are all matters for great public concern especially for rural Americans.

- Is anxious about how state fish and wildlife agencies are mirroring federal agencies’ hiring and staffing of radical employees that are deeply opposed to rural Americans and their way of life.

- Cannot understand how or why state fish and wildlife bureaucrats have become subcontractors for harmful federal policies and actions while increasingly not only ignoring the harms they are causing to rural residents and communities of their state but steadily aiding the federal bureaucrats in their destructive laws and policies.

I could go on here but I think I have made my point and stretched your patience sufficiently.

As an old bureaucrat writing and speaking on this matter for well over a decade, I believe rural Americans have only 3 choices.

1.) Continue hoping for the best like Oregon loggers and mill owners did; like Minnesota moose hunters did; like all the former grazing allotment holders did; like all the ex-sheep ranchers did; like the cattle rancher that committed suicide did; like the people killed and seriously injured by unmanaged and too-numerous predators did; like the thousands that have lost dogs to protected predators; and like current rural old folks and kids especially, living in rural America in the same sort of stress and fear common in primitive Asian societies where guns are prohibited and to quote Thomas Hobbes writing in Leviathan about a similarly out-of-control central government in England in 1651 described the resulting life of the people as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and a “war of every man against every man.”

2.) Tinker around the edges of the destruction by “increasing participation”. “transparency”, and understanding why our destruction is “good” and “beneficial.” Tolerating teachers indoctrinating our children; politicians that worsen and refuse to better our condition; and bureaucrats that abuse us and treat our families, our communities and our way of life with haughtiness and contempt. This is similar to current approaches to immigration, Islamic interfaces and current handling of Constitutional rights from freedom of speech and religion to the right to bear arms that are all only digging the holes deeper and giving a false sense of hope as things get worse and worse.

3.) Begin taking concrete actions to reverse, not amend or modify, the political and bureaucratic actions that are strangling rural America.

Numbers’ 1 and 2 above are not acceptable. They lead to either:

- Living as slaves under tyrants and dictators as all Constitutional “guarantees” are eliminated and all power over all things resides in the most powerful factions and individuals that seize and hold power. Or…

- Armed conflicts between government and the governed, and the “war of every man against every man” that Hobbes wrote about and our Founding Fathers fought in addition to British Troops during The Revolutionary War.

If you want to begin taking back the rural America we built and enjoyed until what I write of here took hold, I submit the following for your consideration.

Neither federal nor state government (politicians & bureaucrats) will be reformed without solid pressure, just as they have been perverted by radical agendas promising rewards from radicals and the Treasury to politicians seeking re-election and bureaucrats seeking their own enrichment. Where is this pressure for reform to come from?

Either it will come from the military ( a horrible thing to contemplate) or it must come from Local Governments strongly advocating for Local Communities and Counties.

Just as strong Local governments are the venue for reforming state governments gone astray, so too are strong state governments the venue for reforming an out-of-control federal government.

But, the fact is that Local governments and their revenues have been prime targets for these radical agendas of destruction right from the get-go. Their presence and their voice have purposely dwindled as their revenue dwindled from economic destruction of rural areas and the growth of federal rural restrictions with state tolerance and the expansion of federal ownership and land controls.

The first step is to elect Local politicians that will fight for you at the state level. That means reasserting Local power in your state Capital.

- Overhaul your state agencies that are harming you and make structural changes in the State Legislature to balance rural representation. Consider that the US Constitution originally designated TWO US Senators for EACH STATE to balance tiny Rhode Island and Delaware with Leviathan’s California and Texas. Something similar is needed to balance the “800 lb. gorilla” effect of the Chicagoes and Manhattans in the states they occupy.

- Enact and enforce Ordinances and Regulations that require the state government to side with you against unjust federal intrusions. For instance, require a County Permit to introduce or release any wild animal in YOUR County. That means federal or state bureaucrats. If your state government will not recognize its role as protecting and nurturing you and opposing federal abuses that you will not tolerate then Reform it with all the enthusiasm and determination of those that took it from you in recent years!

- Elect good Local politicians to state offices. Then elect good state politicians to federal offices with an agenda of repealing and amending unjust laws and reducing the power and agendas of out-of-control federal bureaucracies.

- Repeal the 17th Amendment that, in 1913, changed the way US Senators were appointed (from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof”): this began the steady and incremental loss of States Rights under the 10th Amendment that underpinned the growth of the problems facing us today. While the Senate and its awesome powers (Ratify Treaties, Confirm Judges and high Appointees as well as passing on all Legislation and Budgets) were designed to Represent Each State; today they represent and advocate for the changing and variable (mostly urban) voting coalitions that elect and re-elect them AND NOT THE STATE they reputedly “represent.”

So, here is my suggestion on getting started. Since I am on old wildlife guy, this concerns wildlife but I challenge you ag guys and timber guys and road guys and rural businessmen to come up with some similar beginning at the Local level.

Enact an Ordinance that establishes that you (the Local Level) are the Primary Authority for the presence, management and control of wild and domestic animals in Your County. You will determine if, what, where and how many cougars, coyotes, free-roaming dogs, black bears, foxes, raccoons, etc. will be tolerated in the County. You will set the seasons, conditions, limits, methods and circumstances that said animals can or will be taken. You will provide a County where cattle or hunting or fishing or recreation or all in some mix is what is desired by residents for their own good in their own communities. You will prohibit the state to release cougars or coyotes or bears from urban areas where urban residents think that wild animals can be managed in line with human necessities by live-trapping and kicking them out on some rural County road in the dead of night. (This latter phenomenon is going on all over the country as I write.) You will require a permit from any federal, state or local entity releasing wild animals and that application will have a written permission of any landowner in the vicinity of the release. You will prohibit certain species like grizzly bears or wolves from becoming established in the County and authorize landowners, hunters, ranchers, County Animal Control and others to shoot, trap, snare, etc. any arriving in the County or live trap them for the agency responsible who then pays a fine the first time after proving the animal has certain vaccinations and the second time the animal is euthanized.

The state government should back you up in this. The state game warden and the state wildlife budget should recognize, protect and nurture the Counties in these regards. The state wildlife managers and wildlife control agents should enable Counties to create Local environments for the Local people.

Now, if you think there won’t be extreme blowback on this, you are mistaken. The state is “superior”, “it won’t work”, “they don’t know what they are doing”, etc., etc. will be screamed everywhere. Massachusetts’ Constitution, California’s laws, Illinois’ regulations will all suddenly take on all the importance of The Ten Commandments as the Capitals are filled with squeals. This is EXACTLY what must eventually take place in Washington when a majority of the states get squared away and real reform of the federal government begins.

Finally, as this is “pooh-poohed” by state and (behind the scenes) federal government; try this. File a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request with your state government and the federal government for a summary of the circumstances of all live-trapped wild animal in your state for the past (3?, 5?) years AND the LOCATION of where they were released. You will be surprised whether you live in Oregon, Illinois or Connecticut .

Now I personally expect that just like the numbers of wolves or the numbers of elk/moose in wolf country, some states may, like their federal “partners, lie about this since they believe they are truly unaccountable but, some will be rightly fearful that being misleading or lying or destroying records could possibly wind up in a court before a judge that does not see them as above the law.

Maybe this could be accomplished with the help of some legal aid or law advocate firm or organization or maybe even some firm interested in American Civil Liberties? Maybe some of the elk/deer/hunting/fishing/Unlimited/Forevers/Sporting Goods Stores, et al might possibly see how this affects them and drag themselves away from the federal buffets long enough to help legally and financially? Maybe even ranchers and farmers and loggers and rural businesses might even discern a stake in such a move to begin getting things back on the right path?

The following cartoon was drawn over 250 years ago before there was ever a Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or a United States of America. Just as Ben Franklin was addressing the colonies to unite and address British tyranny peaceably at that time, so too must rural Americans either come together and prevail or the consequences will be far more awful than anyone will admit. This idea for bottom-up reform starting with Local government that I am suggesting here is made in the same spirit that Ben Franklin addressed those colonists centuries ago.


Join, or Die by Benjamin Franklin was recycled to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule

Join, or Die by a well-known cartoon by Ben Franklin appeared in the :Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule. It is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist in America. It shows a snake cut into eighths (New England was treated as one) with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the 13 American colonies or region.

Jim Beers
24 May 2014

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.

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

60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education Desegregation Decision Commemorated

Jim Crow Banished, But Failing Public Schools a Crisis for Many Black Youth

Vouchers and Other Alternatives to Failing Public Schools Needed for Full Equality of Opportunity

Washington, DC – On the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that mandated desegregation in American public schools, members of the Project 21 black leadership network commend the necessary desegregation of public education, but point out that providing all students with a quality education, including viable alternatives, still challenges government.

“While it’s important to commemorate Brown v. Board of Education as the beginning of the end of legal segregation, it must also be recognized that public education still sometimes denies true opportunity when government cannot live up to its mission. There’s still a long way to go, particularly in giving minority children in large cities an escape from low-performing, government-run schools,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon , a former senior counsel with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instituting voucher programs and encouraging charter schools is a positive step toward giving parents alternatives to failing public schools. While there are leaders such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty willing to champion such reforms, it’s a shame many of the same people lauding the Brown anniversary are also among those seeking to stop such reforms from proceeding.”

A consolidation of five different cases involving racially-segregated public schools, the Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. The ruling, a unanimous decision, declared that segregated schools are “inherently unequal” and that there is no place for the Jim Crow era doctrine of “separate but equal” in government-run school systems. The Court at the time of the ruling left it up to state attorneys general to submit individual desegregation plans, but declared in 1955 that efforts to fully desegregate public schools needed to commence with “all deliberate speed.”

In its ruling on Brown, the Supreme Court found the policy of segregated education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, the Court overturned its 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that had upheld Jim Crow laws.

“Brown v. Board of Education should be celebrated as a high point in American history. What should be lamented is the current state of the nation’s public school system, said Project 21′s Derryck Green, a doctoral candidate in ministry. “De facto segregation has returned on the basis of class, which unfortunately, continues to disproportionately affect poor minorities — particularly black children. Teachers’ unions have demonstrated an unwillingness to allow poor and minority children access to quality education of their parents’ choosing through school vouchers. Teachers’ unions obstructing school choice is perfectly emblematic of segregationist former Alabama governor George Wallace, who defiantly stood in the schoolhouse door to block welcome progress.”

“As we mark the 60th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, there is little to celebrate in the way of educational achievement in inner city schools across America. Dropout rates are too high and graduation rates too low. An appropriate and effective way to address the poor performance is through parental engagement and raising expectations,” said Project 21′s Stacy Washington , a St. Louis radio talk show host and former school board officer. “Many innovative educational formats have sprung up in response to academic malaise and are gaining in popularity as parents leave public education institutions and seek other options. The best way to celebrate and commemorate Brown is by supporting those parents and communities and encouraging more educational innovation.”

Over the past two years, Project 21 has been involved in the U.S. Supreme Court education cases of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

After the Court heard arguments in the Schuette case, Project 21 held a policy luncheon (video available here) that featured Jennifer Gratz, the executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that was the basis for the Schuette case. Gratz, of course, also was the plaintiff in the 2003 race preference case of Gratz v. Bollinger.

In 2014, members Project 21 have already participated in over 600 media interviews and citations that include MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, TVOne, Sirius/XM satellite radio, The Root and Westwood One on a myriad of issues facing black Americans that includes education, racial preferences, the economy, voter ID, regulation and law enforcement.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .