August 21, 2014

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.

Have You Been Injured By The USFWS’s Listing of The Lesser Prairie Chicken?

DEPA Executive Director

As you know, one prong of our multi-tiered vigorous defense is in the legal arena.

We are actively collecting background stories from DEPA Investors who have been injured because of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent decision to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Your specific description of injury will support our efforts to convince the court the Fish and Wildlife Service never should have listed the species as threatened, and it will spotlight devastating effects of the decision.<<<Read More>>>

Wolves in Greece: Or More Accurately a Changing of Narrative About Wolves

*Editor’s Note:* Earlier today I posted a story written by James Beers about how efforts are underway in Finland to, “facilitate a change in attitudes” toward wolves. Recently here in the United States, the lovers of predators met in Yellowstone National Park. Among their list of goals, we find the need to change the way in which people and wildlife managers view and implement wildlife management. Today, we find below another outcome-based study all geared toward changing attitudes and nothing to do with the scientific management of large predators, like wolves, and wildlife in general. This shifting paradigm, brought on by “change agents” is nothing knew and in the past its “soft” approach has basically gone unnoticed. With the majority of people worldwide sufficiently brainwashed and turned into non thinking robots, what is left is merely to “change the attitudes” of those that don’t quietly fall in line with the government narrative. This, of course, is not happenstance, but an orchestrated event in which the power brokers, the ruling elite, have created and/or discovered a remarkable tool in which they can effectively prey upon non thinkers who worship and adore their animals in order to fulfill their objectives of human control along with the destruction of rights and complete slavery. We should never view such activities as harmless actions by a bunch of idiots. Perhaps there are ample “useful idiots” and “True Believers” to carry out the plan, but the Planners know exactly what they are doing and have become experts at it.

Abstract
The protection of the former outlaw wolf (Canis lupus) has become a conflicting issue in regions of Central and Northern Greece the last years. The population of the wolf in rural areas has been a trouble for livestock breeders in those areas due to the attacks on their herds. Therefore they are important actors in the conflict
related to the protection of the wolf. The reasons they emerge and the ways those conflicts should be resolved spot the light on the socio-political aspect of the situation. The case of the presence of the wolf in two regions in Central Greece and its perceptions from people relate d to animal husbandry is the topic of this study. Employing the structural approach of the theoretical framework of the Social Representations, it was concluded that negative characteristics of the wolf rooted in the local history and culture are connected with the included in the study practices and attitudes breeders and veterinarians have towards wolves in the region. Narratives about secret releases of wolf are dominant and they reveal issues mainly related to distrust towards NGO’s and public services and the feeling of marginalization is strong, while acts of illegal hunting appear to be consequent practice which can be interpreted as a political action.”<<<Read More>>>

San Diego Gestapo: Police Chief Says Can Disarm Americans in One Generation

“San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within “a generation.””<<<Read More>>>

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

Thoughts:

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

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

Von Mises Eschatology 001

Eschatology

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.