March 27, 2015

Hunting Bill Unfair

It always amazes me that when bills are passed or proposed that somebody doesn’t like, they claim that it is unfair. To justify their rant about the unfairness, they present their own ideology with the expectation that everyone else must conform to the way they choose to live. I fail to see how whining and carrying on all in an attempt to force others to think and live the way they do, is in any way living in a free country where a person should have the right to self determination.

Read an opinion piece on the Maine Legislatures “unfairness” in presenting a bear hunting bill aimed at youth.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

The Barbarity of Protecting Killer Wolves Over Human Interests

Below is an article by James Beers in reference to a letter written by a rancher and published in a local Oregon newspaper.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

It is a great sadness to receive e-mails and copies of small town newspaper articles like the following, almost every day. The feelings of helplessness and anger when Big City newspapers either ignore these incidents or even worse, deny and ridicule those being harmed must be what it was like after WWII to reflect back on all the lies and disinformation from news accounts and politicians about the German wonderland Hitler was forming and how misunderstood Stalin and his henchmen were as they were forming a “worker’s paradise” that the American press published during the 1930’s.

Who speaks for and defends the ranchers, farmers, businessmen and families of rural America as they are pillaged like this by politicians and bureaucrats working in league with coalitions of wealthy interest groups that prance about and dress like secular missionaries imposing their hateful ideology of lies and nature worship?

The article below is from the Wallowa County Chieftain newspaper in Enterprise, Oregon (in the NE corner of Oregon). They won’t read it in Portland or Eugene where the state politicians and their bureaucrats are “breakfasting” as I write. You won’t see it in the San Francisco paper or the Chicago paper or even the vaunted Washington, DC paper read by our impotent Congressmen, our self-serving federal bureaucrats, and all the despot-wannabees that would make Mao proud.

* I could send it to my Minnesota big city paper but they would simply snicker as they dismissed it wondering why anyone was so stupid as to send them something like this.

* I could send it to my “Department of Natural Resources” but they would just tell everyone to ignore it because Oregonians just don’t know how to “live with wolves” like we do here in Minnesota. Our Governor Dayton might see this as a chance to “work with” fellow progressive for votes here at home; he might send out a Minnesota DNR delegation that could “advise” the Oregon “Wildlife” agency and in the meantime they could swap information about federal job opportunities and after-retirement opportunities with the “Unlimiteds’, “Forevers”, and “Defenders”.

* I could send it to the University of Minnesota and if they said anything about the problem at all it would be on the order of it probably being the result of insufficient leash laws for dogs and that the calving problems are some sort of new infectious malady for which Oregonians should fork over millions to the University to “conduct research” and “develop recommendations”.

* I could mention it to acquaintances but after listening they would shrug and say it is interesting but what can they do as they look at me with that look of, “what a funny guy”.

* I could send it to the US Fish and Wildlife Service but they would send me form letter #46 that begins. “Thank you for your recent letter…” and ends after a bafflement of BS, “Thank you for writing”.

* I could send it to my Congressman (a good guy) but some young staffer would smile as he came up with a polite letter telling me that while Congressman Kline understands the gravity of the situation, it is not a matter that occurs in his District but he will forward my letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that enforces the Endangered Species Act, oh and thank you for writing.

*I could send a copy to my two US Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) who are elected by; supported (financially, publicity-wise, and vote-wise) by; and beholden to a coalition of urban, progressive environmentalists that want the government to put more wolves and grizzly bears, buy more and more land, and declare more and more “wildernesses” “Out There”. My letter to them would evoke no more than, “I didn’t know there were any people like this left in Minnesota?”

I can only send this article to you and tell you it is only one of many that I receive. The only solution is to abolish any and all authority for the federal government to impose the will of these radicals on one rural community after another. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act must be abolished and its detritus throughout Rural America removed. Then begin rolling back federal land ownership and federal land non-management and non-use from Wilderness Declarations and Roadless Areas to restoration of wildlife, forest and range management for people.

You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly and naturally Local government authority, Local government revenue, and Local control of local matters will increase and how, neither as quickly nor as naturally but inevitably, your state wildlife agencies once again manage the natural resources of your state for the benefit of your state and all those that live in it.

Two things must be done first, but that is something I hope to speak about next month if arrangements come through. I hope to circulate that talk and share it with you after I give it.

Jim Beers

19 March 2015

Wolf attack a cow man’s nightmare

Wolves attacked and stampeded 250 head of very pregnant cows (calving start date March 1) on the Birkmaier private land on Crow Creek pass Feb. 12, 2015. The cows were wintering on the open bunch grass range receiving one-half feed of alfalfa hay. This 1,700-acre piece of land is about 10 miles northeast of Joseph. These cows were to be moved to the Birkmaier home ranch at the mouth of Crow Creek the last of February (the ranch is about 20 miles north).

With no warning from agency people, who normally warn producers of wolves in the area, the wolves attacked in the night. The herd split into three groups. One group of about 70 cows went east, running in total panic, obliterating several barb wire fences. These cows ran about two miles to the Zumwalt road, then south and west about five miles down the OK Gulch road to the Wallowa Valley, then north to the Birkmaier ranch land, about three miles, then reversed and ran about three miles south where they were stopped. These cattle were wet from the condensation of cold air on their overheated bodies. Their tongues were out gasping for air.

Another bunch went north through several fences to the Krebs ranch, about four miles, then back and were going in a large circle still running when they were stopped. A third bunch stayed in the pasture but were in a high state of panic. The cattle could not be fed for two days. They ran away from hay and the pickup trying to feed them. None were killed, no broken legs or stifled joints; some cuts from barbed wire, not serious. We thought we were lucky. The rest of the story, we feared, would be told at calving time and maybe before. By the way, the attacking wolves, from the Umatilla Pack, were at Dug Bar on the Snake River the next day (32 air miles away and over a mile climbing and descending).

Now about fladry and why it wasn’t used. Fladry was not an option under these conditions on a large area with cattle grazing out in the winter time. Fladry is an electric wire with strips of colored plastic attached. Wolf cheerleaders, both local and everywhere, claim this cure-all is the answer to end all wolf depredations. Our experience: It may have a place on small acreages; we find it hard to keep it electrified. Wet snow will take it to the ground, wind blows tumbleweeds and mustard plants into it and if you use existing fences to put it on, wind blows it into the wires of existing fence and shorts it out. To use it on larger acreages requires a separate fence and many electric fence controllers and it’s just impractical.

In the early days of the wolf debate, fladry was offered as a tool by the agencies and enviro groups to suck stock producers in to thinking they could use this to protect their animals. If it was practical it probably wouldn’t be stacked up in the courthouse. Talking to other ranches in other states confirms our belief that most ranchers know it doesn’t work, and so does the wolf.

As I write this on the 11th day of March, 50 cows have calved. Our worst fears are coming true: one aborted a few days after the attack; three backwards hind feet first; one upside down and backwards (the hind leg of this calf penetrated both the virginal and rectal walls); one more upside down and backwards; one tail first (breech); two with legs turned back; one with head turned back. Several vaginal prolapses probably caused by improperly positioned calves. Is this indirect loss or what?

My son Tom and his wife Kelly have had to deal with this horrible task night and day, 31 miles from vet clinics and assistance. What kind of people support turning the terrorist of the animal kingdom loose on these defenseless animals and inflicting this kind of pain and loss? When I think of my family out in the barn trying their best to save these poor animals — it takes hours with good luck to straighten and get them out — I get damn mad. Who do I blame? After devoting about 10 years of my life to fighting this invasion of wolves from neighboring states through the political system, attending numerous ODFW hearings and workshops all over the state and participating in the largest “no wolf” hearing in the state of Oregon at Enterprise, and losing it all when we were slam-dunked by the ODFW commission in Troutdale (who, by the way, didn’t have guts enough to attend the Enterprise hearing) yea, I’m bitter.

We lost eight calves this summer, we were compensated for one. If we aren’t compensated for indirect loss from wolves, our ranch and all others are in serious jeopardy.

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: jimbeers7@comcast.net

In Protest Against False Arrest for Possessing Weapon

This is an interesting presentation. I’m assuming the raw footage is real. The people there should be allowed to protest but their message is based upon wrong information. If we were free men, we would not be having the need to protest. If we were free men our right to self protection would not be limited. The misinformation is that the constitution was for the individual. It is a contract between the Federal Government and the States. America was never “won” from King George. The Paris Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 assured that. And what was left of any constitution was completely changed with the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment. Our rights come from God not man. We should all stand up for God-given rights; that no man can give and take away rights. Because of this, none of us are free men.

A Practitioner Re-indigenizing Myself

Obviously I decolonized my own mind! long ago and have been a practitioner re-indigenizing myself by growing the majority of my own food, raising my own fruit, meat, and using my immediate environment for wild leaves, herbs, roots, fish and meats. Wild meat preservation requires that I manage wild predators. I already tried what you preach and it is BS. So keep in mind readers that environ-mental-ism-ists are condemning hunter gathers who are trying to decolonize their minds from the European federalism which is a legal term for corporate contract which they promote and condemn us for re-indigenizing ourselves by practicing self determination food gathering rather than being coddled by their federal contractual corporate nanny king..? I laugh at the “federal” contractual corporate lands fraud and I realize that, like all things man made, this legal fraud will pass into the dust bin of bad ideas with the knit-wits that thought it up and those that do not comprehend it’s true meanings and purposes as set forth by the real owners of those corporate contracts.

What does “federal” really mean?

From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
FEDERAL– a. from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. Wed, Sax . Weddian,* * *.
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.

So the real meaning of “federal” is a contract or agreement and has nothing to do with a particular type government, although it was a contract that formed government.

So, where is your contractual agreement you signed giving you entitlement rights to my immediate environment and how I preserve it? Here’s a big clue, IT DOES NOT EXIST…

2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations;

YOU ARE NOT MENTIONED HERE AS YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH A STATE OR A NATION. As stated by the judge in the Padleford case;

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”

Right here is all the proof you need that you are not a party to any compact (contract/Agreement) with the federal government or state government for that matter under any constitution.

#2 of Webster’s definition; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; * * .

Your mutual agreement is with a private organization using the word “federal” in a fraud, because of people’s ignorance. Remember words are used against you every time it is in the criminal’s best interest. Now when you look at Black’s Law dictionary, they are carefully couched in constitutional terms and nations and compacts between the states and never use “Federal” as defined by Webster’s. Even Ballentine’s uses it, as does Blacks.

Now let’s move to present day (1969) Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary. This now states what The Law dictionaries state and have thrown out the etymology of the word federal so you would have no idea it means a contract between parties, leading you to believe everything “federal” pertains to government.

Humm, ok, so what about federal express? Does that mean government express?

So I happen to have a 1911 Webster’s unabridged dictionary and the definition of “federal” is exactly word for word, the same as the 1828 Dictionary. So what happened in 1913 that changed the definition of “federal” to mean only pertaining to government? Think. Words are changed by men to mean what they want it to mean. The Random House Dictionary 1967 uses Webster’s 1828 definition, but also includes what the Law dictionaries define federal as. Here is proof as to how a word changes over the years by men that want control by starting to shove aside what “federal” really means. So the real word “FEDERAL” meant contract between men (parties) or agreement between them.

Waiting for you to show me a legitimate land title agreement between you and those men that set this fraud into motion’ – waiting… waiting… waiting…

It does not exist; YOU public lands owner own nothing. Every time you call those federal lands you mean someone else’s lands not your lands.

If you want an over population of wolves in your immediate environment you deserve what you get from that as well, a whole lot of nothing when it comes to wild elk meat..

This gets better the deeper we research it, you are Federal Human Resources property. How can property own property? How can non signatories of any federal contractual agreement with the international community own federal property? They cannot, they do not, they never did and they never will..

I’ve had this discussion with two judges, and nine lawyers. They have yet to prove me wrong. One of the Judges commended myself for figuring it out and that I was correct..

Have a nice life of lies, because you’ve been and still are owned property.

Can’t Touch That

State Proselytism Via Concealed Carry Permitting

Ammoland today has an article about how the Washington Post is attempting to wrongfully scare the hell out of people over the fact that some states are considering legislation that would bring back “Constitutional Carry” of weapons, vs. Concealed Carry and Open Carry. Constitutional Carry allows an American citizen to carry open or concealed without having to jump through hoops and get a license from the government.

Ammoland brings out an interesting point:

In saying these things, WaPo misses the fact that the ultimate purpose of many concealed carry permit classes around the country isn’t to make the citizen a better shot or more adept at drawing and shooting a gun to begin with.

Rather, the purpose is to lecture them on state laws regarding lethal use of force, thereby absolving the state of liability in a licensing situation.

But Constitutional Carry is another way to absolve the state of liability —it is perhaps the best way— for it makes responsibility and liability a personal matter once again.

The America Few Want to Recognize

“Mr Bosworth was handcuffed and taken away. He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for “failure to comply.””<<<Read More>>>

FCC New Statist Unelected “Seize” er of Human Control

Mostly due to fake cyber security breeches, relentless government fear mongering and a sedentary citizenry, manipulated into uncaring and unquestioning servitude, the Federal Communications Commission, took a giant bite out of the last bastion of free speech, a place to express independent thought. The Internet is now a government-controlled wasteland…or soon will be.

What is described as a 300-plus page book of regulations, has remained secret. Reports are that even the FCC board that voted on the new central control actions, didn’t see the pages of the plan, but they voted to approve it anyway.

Perhaps the largest grab of power away from the citizens and free enterprise in many, many years, and for the most part, aside from a random reporting about the vote, the media is silent and the population is ignorant. The false focus and distraction is on “Net Neutrality”.

And now you know why all of this fascist control is being undertaken at breakneck speed. We are too blind to see it nor do we care…evidently. People should help the government and the puppet dupes out and keep discussing the pros and cons of “Net Neutrality”. That way they can implement all the other anti rights portions of the new regulations none of us are allowed to see.

What in God’s name is it that humans cannot see in this? WHAT?

Message to Jesse Jackson: Stop Lying About the Voting Rights Act

Jesse Jackson Wrong to Claim U.S. Supreme Court Made Voting Rights Act “Null and Void”

“Resorting to Hyperbole… Unnecessarily Divides People,” Says Project 21’s Cherylyn Harley LeBon

Washington, DC – Jesse Jackson’s false claim that a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision made the 1965 Voting Rights Act “null and void” is being refuted by legal and civil rights experts with the Project 21 black leadership network.

Project 21 members are demanding Jackson tell the truth about the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

“Jesse Jackson is certainly entitled to criticize how the U.S. Supreme Court reformed the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but he also has a duty to be truthful about what the justices did instead of resorting to hyperbole that unnecessarily divides people,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a talk show host with the USA Radio Network and former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Voting Rights Act was not made ‘essentially null and void’ in 2013. The law still exists and it still protects us. For Jackson to throw such allegations out there like that is reckless and wrong.”

In comments at the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in Pratt City, Alabama February 7, Jesse Jackson grossly mischaracterized the outcome of the 2013 Shelby County case when he said: “What was earned in blood in Selma was taken away by the pen in Shelby, so the Voting Rights Act of ’65 was essentially null and void. So in effect what we won on the battlefield in 1965 was taken away June 25th, 2013.”

In Shelby County, the Court found that Section 4(b) of the 19-section Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it is based on a formula last updated in 1975. Congress is free to update the formula, which places certain states and localities under special scrutiny because of discrimination that took place over 40 years ago.

Project 21 submitted a legal brief in the case, arguing that the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance standards are “not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” and that there is a danger that parts of the Act are “now a central tool for institutionalized racial discrimination at the command of the [Obama Justice Department] itself.”

“Jesse Jackson has it absolutely backwards. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was not to give a preference to any group because of their race, but instead end the practice of preferring one race over another. Over time, Eric Holder and people such as Jesse Jackson transformed that consensus into becoming the very thing that America came together to resolve,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and served on the leadership staff at the U.S. House of Representatives. “It is no better to prefer blacks in redistricting than it is to prefer whites. I’m proud of the role that Project 21 played in creating the race-neutral vision that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated.”

“Once again, it appears Jesse Jackson is playing on America’s emotions in order to continue his agenda of pimping black Americans out to advance his perceived role as a leader and celebrity,” added Project 21’s Shelby Emmett , a lawyer and former congressional staff member. “The changes to the Voting Rights Act that Jackson complains about do nothing of the sort to limit voting rights for black Americans — or any American. The reforms instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court removed the assumed racist assumptions of specific states and districts. Any actual violations can still be prosecuted. Suits can still be filed, and damages can still be awarded. The level of scrutiny is still high. My voting rights are as secure today as they were before 2013. In fact, I feel they are more secure with these changes because, instead of profiling a few select states, the changes require the same standards nationwide.”

Jesse Jackson also alleged blacks in Alabama and elsewhere are maliciously “packed and stacked” in majority-minority legislative districts, falsely claiming this practice is only possible because the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

In fact, the Voting Rights Act triggers special federal scrutiny when redistricting may result in fewer minorities being elected to office, so the truth is the opposite of Jackson’s claim: the Voting Rights Act remains in force and itself promotes the existence of majority-minority districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of deciding a case involving Alabama’s recent legislative redistricting in which members of the state’s black and Democrat lawmaker caucuses sued over the accusation that the redistricting unfairly concentrates black voters.

Leaders of the Alabama legislature, the defendants in the case, cite pre-Shelby County Section 5 enforcement as the impetus for the disputed mapping decisions. Project 21 also submitted a brief in the combined cases of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, arguing: “In these cases, Alabama was prohibited by [the Voting Rights Act] from acting in a race-neutral manner. Redistricting was done under the preclearance regime in place before Shelby County… [S]tates will continue to be placed in the impossible position of being required to comply with racial balancing statutes and the Equal Protection Clause simultaneously [without stricter scrutiny regarding race].”

“Comments from the Reverend Jesse Jackson illuminate the irrelevancy of today’s racial leaders,” said Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks, a former executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “Rather than a backwards step, the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County ruling actually represents a victory for civil rights. The majority ruling by the justices only struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and its preclearance formula, leaving the remainder alive and intact to protect the voting rights of all Americans. Reverend Jackson should know that Section 5 enforced racial gerrymandering which created voting districts drawn on racial or ethnic lines.”

Hicks added: “While it is clear that facts to leftists and liberals are like Kryptonite to Superman, only a few states in the union had a total voter turnout rate – for whites or minorities – under 50 percent since 2012. In fact, the turnout in six of the states covered by Section 5 was well above the national average. Mississippi, a state the voting formula for Section 5 was intended for, had the highest total turnout rate in the nation. If so-called leaders such as the Reverend Jackson were truly interested in actual racial progress he would be celebrating along with me that the Court made Section 5 a relic instead of perpetuating meaningless racial mythology.”

Project 21 participated in the cases of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Shelby County v. Holder over the past two terms of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. during the Court’s current term. Over the years, Project 21 has been involved over a dozen legal briefs and its members have discussed these cases in hundreds of media interviews and citations.

Project 21 members were interviewed or cited by the media over 2,000 times in 2014, and over 200 times so far in 2015, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, the Orlando Sentinel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch , SiriusXM satellite radio as well as 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WHO-Des Moines, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh. Topics discussed by Project 21 members included civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, voter ID, race preferences, education, illegal immigration and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 members also provided substantial commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner judicial proceedings. Project 21 has also defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come 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 (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

If the EPA Wants My Old Woodstove, Beware the Bullets When They Come to Get It

*Editor’s Comment* – When the EPA bans the use of inefficient (by their fascist standards) wood-burning stoves, the bastards can come and get mine. Caution to EPA: Beware of multiple gunshots flying in your direction upon entry.

“The EPA has finalized a 344-page rule to make wood stoves more environmentally friendly, meaning that millions of Americans will soon be forced to buy more expensive wood-fired stoves.”<<<Read More>>>