September 21, 2014

Stevens County Commission Condemns Washington Wolf Management

Or lack of management! Somebody must pay for this atrocity and negligence!

According to Rich Landers of the Spokesman Review, the Stevens (Washington) County board of commissioners unanimously passed a resolution that condemns the actions, or lack thereof, of wildlife agents for “failing to protect people, wildlife and livestock from wolves that are naturally recolonizing the region.”

“Naturally recolonizing?” I doubt that very seriously. These are GI wolves, stocked from wolves captured and released into Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. If these animal were fish, there would be hell to pay for calling a stocked fish or its offspring “naturally” occurring.

Liability and responsibility first lies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all the non governmental agencies that participated in the illegal introduction of wolves. Disguised as a government-run and sponsored operation, the people were not told the truth about these animals, their behavior, and what the long term plans were. NOTHING promised has happened!

Now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done their dirty, nasty, deed, they have dumped the cost and responsibility of “managing” wolves into the laps of brainwashed wildlife agents who think that people suck and wolves rule.

No rational, sensible, freedom-loving people would even consider that some nasty, stinking, rotten, disease-infested animal would take any….THAT’S ANY, precedence of human rights and property. What in God’s name have we become?

Take responsibility man! Kill all the wolves in this Huckleberry Pack, as random killing only exacerbates the problem. No human should be forced to cede their rights, property and safety to any damned animal! What in hell is wrong with us?

Government May Soon Direct What Private-Sector Employees May Say in the Workplace

Employee’s Demotion for Comparing Media and Political Reaction to Trayvon Martin’s Death to Lack of Response Over Shooting of a White Baby Upheld

Decision Highlights Troubling Aspects of Potential Government Overreach in “Hostile Work Environment” Law

Washington DC – In response to a recently-announced North Carolina administrative decision upholding an employee’s demotion for comments about race, and in light of the calls for increased racial dialogue following Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the National Center’s in-house legal scholar is warning American workers that local and federal government leaders may soon restrict racial and political speech even in private work places.

“In the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, political leaders and pundits are calling for Americans to engage in frank discussions about racial issues. It is a common theme following such events, but one that is fraught with peril for American workers,” warns National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof, Esq. “Just as President Barack Obama called for a national discussion about race following Trayvon Martin’s death, pundits of all stripes are clamoring for kitchen table and water cooler talks following the death of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri. This is potentially dangerous advice.”

Any earnest discussion about race – specifically in the workplace – could very quickly lead to claims of a racially hostile work environment. Those claims can lead to demotion or termination for those participating in such conversations. A case that was recently decided by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings highlights the problem.

The facts of the case are straightforward. In brief, an employee – who was a government worker in a supervisory role – used a break in a meeting to read aloud from a Facebook post. Written from the imagined perspective of an actual 13-month-old white baby boy who was murdered in Georgia, the post lamented the decided lack of political and media attention to his death at that time as opposed to the constant attention surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death at the same general time. The post attributed much of this discrepancy to race – the baby being white and Trayvon being black.

The employee was demoted for her actions, and the recent North Carolina case upheld that decision.

“I do not have qualms with the specific outcome of the case since the employee appears to have broken clear office rules regarding cell phone and Facebook use. The problem is that the arbiter went too far in ruling that the employee’s action contributed to a hostile work environment,” said Danhof. “This has implications beyond this one government employee and could negatively impact many private sector employees as well. Many hostile work environment laws are inherently vague and therefore give the arbiter extreme latitude in deciding these cases. This is an issue that transcends race, and the way it can stifle free speech and put employees at risk for something even the President encourages shows why something must be done to reform this problem in the workplace.”

Cases such as this could very well lead to instances of government restricting speech based on content and viewpoint – where speech deemed hostile to blacks is punished and speech that is hostile to whites it not – even when such speech is on private property.

“By declaring that the employee’s speech was ‘racially and politically provocative,’ the precedent set by the hearing officer could make these types of statements actionable in a private work setting – even if the employer would not restrict such speech,” said Danhof. “That is big brother on steroids.”

“Do you think affirmative action discriminates against white and Asian students, and that some black and Hispanic beneficiaries of the program are undeserving? You better not say so out loud. Do you support ballot integrity measures such as voter identification laws? You better not talk about it, lest you be judged as hostile to blacks,” warns Danhof. “Law and justice are increasingly color-centric, not color blind. Americans who want to have earnest discussions about these and other important issues at work, do so at their own peril. ”

To read more of Danhof’s legal analysis and commentary on this issue, go here.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
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.

One Arizona County Doesn’t Want Any Wolves

PRESCOTT – The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Monday against the return of wolves to this county.

“Yavapai County doesn’t need wolves,” Supervisor Chip Davis said. “We’ve got a fix for the imbalance in the ecosystem. It’s called hunting.”<<<Read More>>>

1973 Endangered Species Act: A return of the Dark Centuries?

Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” is described by National Review as a “serious work of legal scholarship on the return of the prerogative to our government.”

The professor shows how the unlimited power of the administrative state comes from the King’s prerogative, a special power that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Published in 1890, Bancroft’s Works* Vol. 38 Essays and Miscellany at page 284 describes the English-American jury trial right as the end to the King’s prerogative.

And that begs the question: Did the Nevada rancher get a jury trial with regard to the taking of his preference grazing rights? Will we get jury trials when the same bureaucrats impose encumbrances through the 1973 Endangered Species Act on private Texas land?

Bancroft: “The right of trial by jury comes to the Englishmen more directly in the form of a victory. During the dark centuries, prerogative or despotism denied such a right.” Bancroft refers to the “… subtleties of the royal prerogative, or the learned malevolence.” Malevolence is defined as a vicious ill will.

“But later, with increase in intellectual strength and material stability, the people intrenched[sic] themselves in their rights, and since the magna charta this privilege has been held the dearest of a progressive people. It was a right guarded with vigilant care, and for which intelligent freemen everywhere would fight and die. To America came this sentiment, and was embodied in the constitutions of several states.”

“The victory originally achieved by the people over the government by the establishment of the jury system was the right of participation in the administration of the law. No man might thenceforth be jeopardized in person or property without appeal to his fellows for redress.”

“It was a sign of the increasing purity of political character and growing love of honesty and fair play.”

Bancroft goes on to state that, “When the government and the people were one the victory was complete.”

But with the lesser prairie chicken land grab, there is no jury trial right. We are called to evening meetings to participate in our own centrally planned and controlled impoverishment, the systematic destruction of American exceptionalism, and are allowed only to make ignorable comments about confiscatory administrative regulations that routinely and stubbornly violate ancient state land law, the US Constitution and our human dignity.

Control equals wealth. State/centralized control equals wealth for a tiny few politically well-connected people who can sometimes be referred to as oligarchs. Decentralized control means decentralized wealth, the same system that allowed my family and many millions of others to prosper in America according to our personal industry, luck, decision-making, risk-taking and more. The wealth from decentralized control created the highest per capita income in the world for Americans since the early 1830’s. On the other hand, centralized control of the modes of production, as Karl Marx puts it, is a proven 180 year loser, not to mention some 100 million deaths, subhuman misery and enslavement.

The politically deadly characteristic of the reborn prerogative is that it can contain and disguise and impose any -ism, if you will, on the American people. The prerogative can harbor the cancer of Communism, fascist Nationalism, environmentalism, worship in Gaia, animal liberation, earth liberation and Satan’s attitude of scarcity, just whatever the King wants. And all the -isms except individualism rob us of our God-given rights as set out in the Constitution.

By keeping us under-educated, a nationalized American educational system can serve to keep us too ignorant to learn how to simply say No and to get things turned around. The idea of personal liability imposed on the errant bureaucrat as discussed by Prof. Hamburger is appealing and might be the exact place to start. Especially on those who turned loose the wolves. In my opinion, it is worth a try.

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

*Notice that this volume of Bancroft’s Works was once owned about the 1950’s by a Texas public high school.

HubertBancroft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Habitatism refined

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

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

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

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

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

Could Semantics Disarm America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eight states have passed laws voiding federal firearms regulations

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

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