April 24, 2014

Supreme Court on Path to Ending Race Preferences

Ruling in Schuette Case Paves Way for More Equal, Less Divided America

Black Activists in Favor of Ending Quotas Available for Comments

Washington, DC – Attorneys and activists with the Project 21 black leadership network are pleased about today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on race preferences, and hope the Court’s latest ruling on race-conscious school admissions policies will become decisive in finally ending government-enforced rules creating arbitrary demographic quotas.

“Today, the Supreme Court moved us closer to the colorblind principle that Martin Luther King advocated and that is embedded in the 14th Amendment,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor. “I’m pleased that the principle of treating all Americans the same under the law can go forward in Michigan.

In the case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last October, the justices considered whether the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals correctly voided an amendment to the Michigan state constitution, passed by voters in 2006, prohibiting preferential treatment in public employment, education and contracting based on “race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which became Section 26 of the state’s constitution after its enactment, was supported by 58 percent of Michigan voters. It was struck down, however, by the 6th Circuit in 2012.

Project 21 submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Schuette case written and joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation , noting that “[t]he clear effect of Section 26 is to prohibit the State and its political subdivisions from adopting race- and sex-based preference programs.” The brief also presented factual data about how the prohibition of race-based preferences in California increased diversity and minority retention rates. Similar to Michigan, California voters outlawed race preferences in public college and university admissions in 1996.

Project 21 held a meeting of experts to discuss the case featuring Jennifer Gratz, the executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative after the Court’s oral arguments. Gratz was the plaintiff in the 2003 case of Gratz v. Bollinger that found the University of Michigan’s race conscious admissions policy violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Her talk and the discussion following can be viewed online here.

“It remains to be seen as to whether this is the definitive ruling which will eliminate racial preference policies,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “But I am encouraged that we are moving towards creating an equal playing field where the government does not choose the winners and inadvertent losers.”

During the last term of the U.S. Supreme Court, Project 21 was involved in the U.S. Supreme Court race preferences case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action as well as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on remand from the Supreme Court to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the previous U.S. Supreme Court term, it was involved in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the voting rights case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.

Project 21 legal experts and other members of the organization have discussed these cases and others in media interviews in venues that include MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, HBO, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, the nationally-syndicated Jim Bohannon radio show, Florida Public Radio, the Christian Science Monitor, Reuters and many others.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 .

Justice System Gone Totally Berserk

When it comes to the surreal realm of American gun­ control politics, the adage “truth is stranger than fiction” really applies. Just when you think that you’ve heard it all, something even more utterly outrageous pops into the news headlines.

In the nation’s capital, (which has for a long time been the epicenter of the absurd), a law-­abiding gun collector, and reportedly a gentle man, has been dragged through the wringer of a justice system gone totally berserk.<<<Read More>>>

Obama Uses Phony Statistics to Sell ObamaCare

Claims that 8 Million Have Signed Up for the Exchanges Are Suspect

ObamaCare Has Not Resulted in Three Million Young People Gaining Coverage or Protected 129 Million People with Pre-Existing Conditions

Washington DC – In an article today in the Federalist titled “Why ObamaCare’s Enrollment Triumph Will Prove Fleeting,” National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Dr. David Hogberg challenges the numbers the Obama Administration used yesterday to claim ObamaCare is working.

Yesterday President Obama claimed that 8 million people had enrolled via the exchanges. Not only does that number fail to account for the enrollees who have not paid their premiums, it also fails to account for people who will leave the exchanges for employer-based coverage or Medicaid.

“A study of the California exchange found that accounting for those factors could, by the end of the year, reduce enrollment in Covered California to less than 60 percent of what it is today,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Assuming those factors play out nationwide, the final number of exchange enrollees will be far less than 8 million.”

In a follow-up email to the President’s speech, the Department of Health and Human Services claimed that 3 million young people had gained coverage via their parents’ insurance because of ObamaCare.

Two weeks ago the National Center released a study by Dr. Hogberg showing that statistic is bogus. It inflates the number of young people gaining coverage by including both gains in private and public coverage. Further, an examination of Census Bureau data suggests the number is closer to 258,000.

“The fact is we have no clue how many young people have gained coverage through their parents,” Dr. Hogberg. “The numbers flying around are too unreliable for President Obama to be using them.”

Finally, the email claimed due to ObamaCare 129 million Americans with pre-exiting conditions no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charge higher premiums.

But research shows that barely 1 percent of the population under age 65 was denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition. In fact, barely 107,000 people — .04 percent of the population under 65 — signed up ObamaCare’s risk pool for people with pre-existing condition.

“The problem of pre-existing conditions has long been exaggerated for political purposes, so it’s not a surprise to see the Administration using the discredited 129 million figure,” said Dr. Hogberg. “This Administration’s has proven shameless when it comes to using bogus statistics.

Other health care publications by Dr. Hogberg are available here, and his March 11 testimony at the U.S. Senate on the problems with government-run health care systems can be viewed here.

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.

MT AG Request for Action Goes Unanswered. Now What?

Montana Attorney General has let pass my deadline of Noon today (it’s now after 2PM) to at least acknowledge my request that he look into the details of the recent federal raid on the Bozeman brass recycling business. Pasted next below, for your information, is the strongly-worded followup message I sent to Fox on Tuesday, becoming more insistent that he conduct some sort of inquiry into the federal raid in Bozeman, and giving him until Noon today to respond. Of course, he doesn’t like being told what to do (as he may see this), even though he’s a public servant. Apparently, he thinks it’s just not important to stick up for Montana people.

Now, I need your help to change his mind about that. I ask you to do several things:

1) Email Fox and demand that he conduct an inquiry into the Bozeman raid, as requested. Feel free to use strong language, if you like, but don’t be rude, don’t call him names, and don’t use profanity. Send your emails to all of these email addresses: ofoxc@aol.com, timfox@mt.gov, tfox@mt.gov contactdoj@mt.gov, JonBennion@mt.gov, coswanson@mt.gov Heck, email every day until this logjam breaks.

2) Call for Fox at the Montana Department of Justice at 406-444-2026 – same message; same rules as above.

3) Redistribute this email to any and all interested Montanans.

4) Send this email to your local legislators and insist that they contact Fox with a demand for performance.

5) Write letters to the editor of local daily and weekly papers calling for Fox to investigate as requested.

6) Call in to radio talk shows with the same.

7) Engage in any other First Amendment activism you can think of to cause Fox to feel the heat and see the light.

Attorney General Fox is in a position to require federal enforcers to mind their manners in Montana. The questions are, does he care, and will he?

Thanks loads for your help.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

====================

April 15, 2014

Tim Fox
Attorney General of Montana
Montana Department of Justice
Helena, Montana

Dear Attorney General Fox,

I have received no response from you to my request (pasted below, for your reference) that you investigate an armed federal raid on a Bozeman business a couple of weeks ago. You have not even acknowledged receipt of my request.

Your earned reputation is that you avoid controversy. I imagine you don’t like the idea of disapproval by federal officials for investigating their actions. You may think that, if you just wait a while, interest in this will die down and the whole business will blow over, leaving you in a comfort zone of doing nothing.

If you think that, you are mistaken.

If you don’t show any sign of action in this matter, possibly because you prefer to avoid controversy, you will leave me no alternative but to make it extremely controversial that you seem quite willing to sit on the sidelines and abandon Montanans, requiring them to fend for themselves in the face of armed federal aggression.

Did the federal enforcers break any laws while conducting their Bozeman raid? We won’t know until you look into it. We already know that the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office and the Bozeman Police Department were actively involved in the raid, so we could hardly expect either of those entities to do any sort of honest investigation. They’d more likely make excuses or actively cover up any wrongdoing than conduct any sort of honest investigation, especially since the known facts point to their complicity in the operation. The U.S. Attorney for Montana has no interest. As with the GCSO and BPD, he has more motive to whitewash or actively cover up any wrongdoing than to conduct an honest investigation. So, that leaves you.

In case you have been off on vacation somewhere and away from the news, let me inform you that lots of people are seething with resentment at the high-handed and aggressive tactics of federal employees, witness what has been happening recently in Nevada. In that situation, federal authorities sent scores of federal employees armed with machine guns and sniper rifles, and possibly some military personnel, to take a rancher’s cattle. They threatened to kill people who protested. They attempted to confine protesters to a small “free speech zone” miles from their operation. We simply will not tolerate similar treatment of people in Montana. We elected you to stick up for us.

So, you can either cowboy up and do your job by looking out for the people of Montana, or force me to make your lack of action more distressful for you than any discomfort associated with a quick, assertive and honest review of the Bozeman raid.

I now specifically suggest that you appoint an ad hoc commission of at least two elected legislators and one experienced investigator, and others if you like, and give them ten (10) calendar days to give you a report that addresses the issues raised in my request to you, and any other issues that you may think of or that may arise in the course of the investigation. In case you are short on ideas about suitable legislators, I offer in suggestion Senator Terry Murphy, Senator Art Wittich, Rep. Krayton Kerns, and Rep. Austin Knudsen. If it is possible for you to give this group subpoena powers or other empowering support, I suggest you do so.

You may think the tone of this message intemperate. I guarantee you it is much more restrained than my first draft. You may operate in such genteel and protected circles that you simply don’t understand that people are at the end of their rope with armed federal aggression. Public tension is real and visceral. People are locked and loaded, if you know what that means. The subject of armed federal aggression is no longer a law school or editorial debate. Your ongoing and energetic defense of Montana people, beginning with decisive action about the Bozeman raid, might just avoid real bloodshed over the next such incident in Montana. I believe bloodshed is very much worth avoiding, worth much more than the price of your disinterest or any discomfort you might experience from seeking answers to questions about federal and local officials’ conduct.

I expect you to acknowledge receipt of my request for your involvement, I expect you to say for certain if you will or won’t act, I expect you to offer at least some general explanation of your intended involvement if you will pursue this, and I expect that response electronically by no later than Noon on this Thursday, April 17th.

“The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity.” — Jon Rolan

Very sincerely yours,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

EPA Raid on Montana Brass Company Retribution And Power Display

Most of you will be aware that armed employees of the EPA and FBI recently conducted an armed raid on a company in Bozeman that recycles used cartridge brass. This email is to give you additional information that was not in the news about that, to tell you what I’ve been doing concerning the raid, and to prepare you to help with the next step.

Several months ago, OSHA visited the business, USA Brass, because of allegations of workplace safety issues, notably lead dust in the air from tumbling fired brass (the lead dust would be from primers). There were two employees who had lead levels above what is acceptable. As a result, USA Brass invested a lot of money in expensive air filtration and ventilation equipment, and upgraded employee training and practices. As a result, USA Brass passed a subsequent inspection by OSHA.

However, upon OSHA’s first visit, I’m told, USA Brass managers didn’t kneel quickly enough to OSHA inspectors and offended them by not being subserviently cooperative. So, the subsequent raid by EPA, FBI and others was conducted to teach them a lesson about federal power and proper cooperation.

I have yet to learn if the federal entry was conducted with guns drawn, but that will come out. Many, if not all, of the federal employees were visibly armed (thanks to the local TV station for covering this). The federal employees were aided and abetted by personnel from the Bozeman Police Department and the Gallatin County Sheriffs Office.

Upon arrival, the federal employees forced all the employees into a room or rooms where they were isolated and held for hours. The employees cell phones were confiscated so they could have no communication out of the building. The feds disabled all of the security cameras in the building so there would be no video record of the federal deeds or misdeeds. The feds confiscated and took away all laptop computers and external hard drives, and copied all desktop hard drives, including USA Brass’s contact information for 10,000 customers.

I see this as a Montana version of what’s happening in Nevada. And, I see no reason to put up with it. None!

What is known about the Bozeman raid presents more questions than it answers. I put those questions in a polite letter to the U.S. Attorney for Montana and asked him to look into it. He has not responded. I assume my very polite request went into his round file.

With no response from the U.S. Attorney, I redirected my request for an investigation to Montana Attorney General Tim Fox. That request, which includes the request to the U.S. Attorney, is pasted below for your information. I’ve had no response from Fox yet.

If I don’t get a response from AG Fox by Tuesday (actually, later today as I write this at 2 AM), I’ll turn up the heat.

One additional tidbit: Lawyers for USA Brass have persuaded the principals that they should hunker down and make no waves, for fear of triggering more Draconian and punitive federal actions. While I sympathize with USA Brass, frankly this posture strikes me as similar to advising Jews in pre-WWII Germany to not make any fuss over their neighbors being hauled away in the night by the Gestapo, for fear that the remaining neighbor might be executed right in his apartment then next night by the same Gestapo, rather than just being given a nice train ride to an undisclosed destination.

That’s all. If/when I need your help with this, I’ll get out another email. Stay tuned for more as I learn more.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

==================

April 10, 2014

Tim Fox
Attorney General of Montana
Montana Department of Justice
Helena, Montana

Dear Tim,

You will have seen my request addressed to Mr. Cotter (below). Mr. Cotter has not responded, at least not in a timely manner. I interpret this lack of response as a reluctance or unwillingness to conduct the investigation I requested of him.

Therefore, I now make the same request of you.

In addition to the questions suggested to Mr. Cotter, I hope you will also look at what role the Gallatin County Sheriffs Office may have played, or not played, in the federal raid at USA Brass. More specifically, was the GCSO looking out for the welfare of the people of Gallatin County, or was the GCSO simply aiding and facilitating the operation of federal entities and federal personnel?

Tim, given the heavy-handed application of federal force by BLM currently unfolding in Nevada, I believe it is imperative that Montana assert some accountability for the application of federal police, or police-like, force in Montana. If Mr. Cotter won’t do that, then it becomes even more important for you to be interested and involved.

On behalf of all Montanans, I thank you in advance for your willingness to look into this incident.

Sincerely,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

http://www.mtssa.org

Author, Gun Laws of Montana

http://www.MTPublish.com

======================

April 4, 2014

Michael W. Cotter
U.S. Attorney for Montana
2601 2nd Ave N.
Box 3200
Billings, MT 59101

Dear Mr. Cotter,

Greetings from Missoula.

The purpose of this email is to request that you conduct a careful investigation into the circumstances surrounding a raid executed upon cartridge brass recycler in Bozeman, USA Brass, last Thursday, March 27, 2014, by employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, possibly other federal agencies, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, local law enforcement agencies, and possibly others.

Although the federally-employed personnel involved prefer to characterize this incident as an “audit,” the media portrayal of the incident as a “raid” appears to be more accurate.

The information I have about this incident so far comes from a variety of sources. I seek more information, and so should you. Some of the troubling ingredients of this incident, as I believe them correctly to have been, ingredients not consistent with a simple “audit,” include:

1. Although USA Brass had been subject to some civil enforcement action for workplace safety by OSHA, the company had completely remedied any such problems and had been given a clean bill of health by OSHA. Thus, the recent incident appears to be disconnected from any ongoing issues with OSHA. You may be able to discover the letter issued to USA Brass by OSHA acknowledging USA Brass’s full compliance with OSHA requirements.

2. Because a warrant was served on USA Brass, anyone would wonder if there were some particularly egregious activity going on there, and what the federal foreknowledge of that activity might be. Because of the overwhelming armed force used by federal officials to mount this raid, that suggests expected resistance or some sort of ongoing, violent criminal conduct at USA Brass. Your investigation should disclose whether or not these suppositions, spawned by the tactics of the raid, are correct or incorrect. This, in turn, should offer some perspective about whether or not the level of force and intimidation used was warranted.

3. Upon arrival at USA Brass, federal employees rounded up and sequestered all employees of USA Brass, confiscated their cell phones, disabled company phones, and held employees incommunicado for several hours. Since these employees of USA Brass were not free to leave, I believe this detention qualifies as an arrest under current case law. It would be helpful for you to examine whether sufficient justification for this mass arrest was present.

4. The confiscation of cell phones and disabling of security video apparatus for the incident smacks of advance action by federal employees to prevent any recording of what they did. If everything they did was by the book, proper and legal, it’s difficult to imagine what motive they would have had to insure that there was no video record of their activities. That is very suggestive that the reason they prevented a video record is because some or all of what they did was extra-legal, and that they knew going in that some of their actions would be extra-legal. Perhaps you can get clarification about why public servants doing public work would desire their public actions to be beyond public view and scrutiny.

5. From media video and reports and reports from those at the scene, it appears as if most or all of the raid personnel were obviously armed or displaying arms. This seems excessive for what some officials present would like to characterize as an “audit.” For an “audit,” this has all the appearances of deliberate intimidation, not something exactly calculated to inspire citizen trust and confidence in their government. Maybe you will be able to learn and make public why EPA personnel are armed, and why the many federal personnel present were so obvious about being armed.

6. One unverified report says that the initial entry into USA Brass by federal personnel was made with tactical weapons (machine guns) held pointed at the non-resisting office workers and other USA Brass employees present. Perhaps you will able to confirm or dispel this report. If the report is correct, this would also seem to be excessive for an “audit.” Actually, as someone accepted in state and federal courts as an expert concerning use of force, I can tell you that if a person points a firearm directly at another person, regardless of who the firearm pointer’s employer may be, the person pointing the firearm HAS used lethal force because the firearm pointer has put the life of the other at risk from an all-too-common accidental discharge.

7. During the hours that federal personnel held USA Brass employees captive and sequestered, the federal personnel confiscated laptop computers, confiscated external hard drives, and copied internal hard drives from USA Brass computers. Perhaps you can obtain an explanation for how such seizures are consistent with an “audit.”

8. If this federal action was authorized as an “audit,” perhaps you can learn and explain how it escalated into a full-blown, armed raid.

9. One knowledgeable person has told me that employees of the EPA do not have law enforcement powers in Montana – that the EPA lacks legal authority for the type of operation conducted at USA Brass. If that is so, perhaps you can determine and explain how such an operation fits within legal parameters.

10. The media reports that the senior federal official present at this incident was Bert Marsden, purportedly an employee of the EPA’s “Criminal Division.” A search of the Online staff directory for the EPA fails to disclose anyone named “Marsden” working for the EPA. It will be helpful if you can confirm that the “Bert Marsden” reported by the media actually exists, that he is an employee of the EPA, that the EPA actually has a “Criminal Division,” and that Bert Marsden actually is employed as some sort of official in this EPA Criminal Division.

Mr. Cotter, I urge you to investigate this incident very seriously. If you should find that there were any violations of law or policy by the personnel (federal, state or local) involved in executing this operation, I also urge you to take strong remedial action, including prosecution of any personnel involved who violated any laws.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will respond to this request and announce your intentions in this matter. I also hope you will investigate this incident and make public all relevant findings.

Sincerely yours,Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

http://www.mtssa.org

Author, Gun Laws of Montana

http://www.MTPublish.com

Radical Groups Intend to Sue Idaho to Protect Canada Lynx

LynxintrapThe usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.

Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.

First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.

So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?

The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.

With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.

The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.

There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.

As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?

If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.

It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.

Federal Race-Raters Dealt Major Court Defeat

Black Conservatives Helped Challenge Government Agency’s Race-Card Attack on Job Applicant Credit Checks

Hypocritical Federal Government Fought Company for Using the Same System Government Uses to Screen Hires

Washington, DC – In a case in which the Project 21 black leadership network supported the defendant with a legal brief, an appeals court just delivered a stinging rebuke to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for highly unprofessional methodology in attempting to prove racial disparities in a company’s job applicant credit checks.

“We decided to weigh in on this case because the EEOC’s effort to expand the use of disparate impact analysis went far beyond having any logical nexus with discrimination,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of constitutional law and former congressional leadership staffer. “Instead, such analysis would simply serve as a burdensome and costly barrier to job creation. When we found out about the bizarre ‘race-rating’ technique, we felt even more obligated to share our views. Yesterday’s ruling vindicates our concerns.”

In the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel on April 9 unanimously ruled to exclude the findings of the government contractor General Information Services and the testimony of statistical analyst Kevin Murphy in the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, et al. This affirms the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the summary judgment that ends the EEOC’s complaint against Kaplan.

In the opening paragraph of Judge Raymond Kethledge’s opinion, the jurist succinctly described the awkward nature of the EEOC’s complaint against Kaplan:

In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses… [T]he EEOC runs credit checks on applicants for 84 of the agency’s 97 positions… For that practice, the EEOC sued Kaplan.

The EEOC alleged that Kaplan, a higher education provider that had experienced problems of financial improprieties among its employees and later hired several third-party vendors to perform credit checks on senior executive and other applicants who would be involved in financial matters, illegally created a disparate impact that negatively affected minority applicants. At issue in the case was the EEOC’s methodology of allowing contracted “race raters” who largely relied upon photos provided by state agencies that issue driver’s licenses. The photos were used to determine an applicant’s race. Companies doing the credit checks for Kaplan did not record applicants’ race.

“It defies logic that a federal agency would seek to punish a private company for instituting a widely-accepted business practice — especially since this agency engages in the same practice,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is an example of the lengths to which this presidency will go to advance their divisive agenda. It also highlights the importance of the courts as a rational body to counter these types of policies.”

The legal brief to which Project 21 was a party, written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Cato Institute, Center for Equal Opportunity and Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued, in part:

[The EEOC's] use of race raters directly contradicts its own directives. When the government refuses to rely on self-identification, it must resort to using so-called racial identifiers, and thus stereotypes and sweeping assumptions. By opting not to ask the individuals to identify themselves, EEOC unilaterally made itself the definer and decider of race. It is impossible to define race in such a simplistic way, stamp an individual with a racial classification and simultaneously treat them with dignity…

Equality before the law means that government will not categorize people based on unscientific, stereotypical criteria, and it allows each person to define himself or herself, and thrive as an individual.

Judge Kethledge called the lower court’s ruling “a meticulously reasoned opinion,” and concluded:

The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, accepted only by the witness himself. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Murphy’s testimony.

“Frankly, after seeing the district court’s ruling, I was surprised that the EEOC would even pursue such an appeal. The unanimous ruling by the 6th Circuit demonstrates just how untenable the EEOC’s position was,” added Project 21′s Cooper. “Telling employers who haven’t asked or in any way inquired about the racial status of applicants that they cannot adopt simple, widely-used preventative measures to ensure that potential employees won’t engage in wrongdoing is unfair. Using government contractors to scour applications and get third parties to provide photos to guess the applicants’ race to show how it might constitute racially-biased disparate impact is just plain bizarre.”

Project 21 is currently involved in the U.S. Supreme Court race preferences case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action as well as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on remand from the Supreme Court to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the previous U.S. Supreme Court term, it was involved in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the voting rights case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.

Project 21 legal experts and other members of the organization have discussed these cases and others in media interviews in venues that include MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, HBO, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, the nationally-syndicated Jim Bohannon radio show, Florida Public Radio, the Christian Science Monitor, Reuters and many others.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 .

James Beers: Wolves – 2014

*Editor’s Note* – The below writing perhaps reflects the greatest knowledge and understanding of the effects of forcing wild wolves into human-settled landscapes. Such a writing should give readers the opportunity to fully grasp the entire scope of how romance animal fantasy should never mix with the scientific realities of protecting a dangerous-in-so-many-ways creature where humans live.

However, while one must applaud Mr. Beer’s effort at searching for a solution and his correct analysis of a top-down dictatorial control over everything plant and animal, his proposed solution, while should it actually come to fruition may possibly work and work well, this will not be accomplished solely at the ballot box, if there at all.

The top-down dictatorship of global powers has infiltrated so deeply into our lives for so many years, ballot boxes, while they shouldn’t be eliminated, will not work alone until a miraculous return to self-determination and independence, through a strong foundation of moral principles and values and a return a fear and love of our Creator, has transformed this nation and globe.

Thank you to Jim Beers for caring enough to take the time and lay out the facts for all and for offering a solution.

Guest posting by James Beers:

As Americans and Europeans awaken to the ancient realities of cohabiting with wolves in settled landscapes from which they were extirpated 50 to hundreds of years ago, all manner of heated discussions, questions and coalitions are emerging.

While wolves have persisted for eons in undeveloped landscapes from the wilds of Canada and Alaska to the vast primitive-societal landscapes of Asia; the re-introduction, protection and spread of wolves in Europe and The Lower 48 States of the US in recent decades has precipitated disagreements and political chaos of enormous proportions. National politicians in Europe and the US have partnered with environmental and animal rights organizations representing mainly urban voters and environmental specialist-scientists to enact laws and regulations responsible for the current situation. Opponents of such laws and programs are mainly rural livestock producers, dog owners, hunters, parents, grandparents, the rural poor and an assortment of rural recreationists and rural amateur naturalists from mushroom and berry pickers to plant and rock collectors.

According to the IUCN, wolves currently inhabit 4 continents. They occur in contiguous populations from the uncounted hundreds of thousands (to millions?) in Asia to the Canada/Alaska population estimated to be approaching one hundred thousand. While these populations “spill” into Europe and The Lower 48 US states naturally and periodically; national (federal) US government laws and European (Union) government laws have been passed to forcibly reintroduce and protect wolves throughout their (the wolves) “original” range regardless of the adverse impacts. The rationale for this is that “native” species “belong” wherever they once existed. It is inconceivable to say with a straight face that wolves are “endangered”. Until this very recent change in American and European governance and human/animal legal concepts, such a decision would have been based primarily on the interests of humans and been the sole concern of the governments of individual European Countries or individual American States. This is no longer the case: as wolves demonstrate the growing political construct that human interests are secondary to the animal/environmental statements and beliefs of those controlling increasingly powerful central governments. European Countries and US States have become subservient to Washington, Brussels and the UN. It goes without saying that this phenomenon is steadily incorporating more and more animal and plant species under the international/central government umbrellas and that this has, in turn, made the redress of problems (safety, livestock losses, loss of hunting opportunity, dog losses, property losses, human health, etc.) of rural people associated with mandated and protected species such as wolves, exponentially more difficult to obtain from far-away governments that are more beholden to far-away political factions, a multitude of hidden agendas, and financial support from environmental radicals than to the redress of the concerns of rural communities.

Wolves are members of an animal group called Canids. Canids include wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals and dingos. All of these animals can and do interbreed to produce viable (fully reproducing-capable) offspring the same as humans of different races, different physiology, and different social habits; or dogs of different breeds. Additionally, wolves, like other mammals, are larger in Northern latitudes; lighter-colored in desert habitats; omnivorous in that they eat any meat (wild or domestic); capable of very different behavior in uninhabited areas or settled landscapes, or when hunted, or even close to human habitations like outer suburbs near St. Petersburg or Moscow. In truth, wolf behaviors, wolf sizes and colors, wolf DNA and the many documented dangers and harms they present to humans are varied just like their fellow Canids as seen in smaller western US coyotes v. larger Eastern US coyotes or in the varieties of dog sizes, colors, and behavior differences (i.e. pit bull v. basset hound or Chinese hairless v. Irish Wolfhound) with which most people are familiar. Dingos and jackals tend to be far more uniform in size, color and behavior in large part due to their long-standing isolation from wolves, coyotes and free-roaming dogs. Within this group (Canids) of mammals, it is fair to ask and debate just what is a species, and what is it that is so unique or special that government intervention is called for or warranted for an animal that could be identified as a wolf or a coyote/wolf hybrid or a wolf/dog hybrid or a wolf/coyote/dog hybrid depending of the hubris of government law enforcers and the responsiveness of their DNA-Analyst contractors that make such determinations depending on who has specified the DNA Standards? The very real possibility that wolf protection and spread into settled landscapes where coyotes and especially dogs are abundant and ubiquitous may be resulting in the genetic extinction of wolves as we have known them and that we are witnessing the evolution of a sort-of semi-wild coyote/wolf wild dog that capitalizes on all the settled landscape’ adaptive habits of the three to the even greater detriment to rural human society: this subject is never mentioned, broached or respected. What is a hybrid? What do hybrids portend?

Wolves have been and are a documented danger to humans, especially when they become habituated to human communities and particularly regarding children and the elderly. Written accounts of these dangers extend all the way back to Greek and Roman writers before the time of Christ. European and North American history have copious reports of deaths and injuries to humans despite poor record-keeping, spotty reporting and unsolved disappearances in sparsely-settled landscapes of early European and early American settlement and development periods. Russian current events still mention a steady stream of wolf attacks on humans causing deaths and serious injuries and infections of victims from rabid wolves (one such wolf just seriously injured six Indian villagers in the Panchmahal District as I am writing this) and recent attacks on old Russian lady shepherds; and even a Russian sawyer actually running his chainsaw and over 20 others bitten by one rabid wolf in recent years are typical!. An Alaskan report of a recent 32-year period regarding wolf attacks, called human/wolf interactions, described 80 such incidents in Alaska and Canada. In the past decade a healthy young man going for a walk near a rural mining community was killed by wolves in Saskatchewan, a young woman (teacher while jogging) was killed by wolves in Alaska and a young woman hiker was killed by several coyotes in an Eastern Canadian Park in just the past decade. Only last summer a young camper was attacked during the night by a wolf in a federal Minnesota campground only weeks after I was fishing right near that campground. When a wolf was killed, it was said to be the one that attacked but that he only attacked because he was “suffering from a deformed brain”. Most likely it was primarily because public awareness and understanding of similar human dangers from wolves in bygone times that so much time, wealth and effort was diverted from other vital functions by Europeans in the last millennium and European settlers in North America to exterminate wolves in areas that were being settled or were intended to be settled by farmers, shepherds, ranchers and others interested primarily in safe and productive communities, and peaceful home environments for their families. When livestock losses, big game animal losses, dog losses and disease dangers were also considered; evidently no effort was considered too great by our forefathers and their families.

Wolves transmit diseases and infections that are deadly or debilitating to people, cattle, sheep, dogs and other wild and domestic animals. These include but are not limited to Rabies, Brucellosis, Encephalitis, Anthrax, Smallpox, Mad Cow Disease, Chronic Wasting Disease, Distemper, Neospora caninum (causes abortions), 2 types of Mange, GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep), Foot-and-Mouth, Heartworm and Parvo. Wolves carry a wide range of Ticks and Fleas that they pick up as they wander far and wide encountering all manner of other animals with wide varieties of ticks and fleas. The Ticks they carry can transmit; Anemia, Dermatosis, Tick Paralysis, Babesiosis, Anaplasmosis, Erlichia, E. Coast Fever, Relapsing Fever, Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever and Lyme Disease. The Fleas they carry can transmit; Plague, Bubonic Plague. Pneumonic Plague and Flea-Borne Typhus. Additionally, wolves carry and spread the infectious and dangerous eggs of Tapeworms (Echinococcus granulosis and multilocularis) that they deposit in the area around their feces in parks, campgrounds, rural yards, playgrounds, trails and other areas where the eggs remain viable for months to be picked up by grazing animals feeding on plants, curious dogs, and children and adults on fingers, paws, tongues dropped food and shoes to be brought into homes where they reside for small children to pick up from rugs and floors. The resulting cysts in vital organs can kill or debilitate humans while also debilitating other animals like moose, elk and livestock, thereby making them less agile and strong and thus even more vulnerable to wolf predation.

Wolves kill and eat coyotes and dogs (herding, hunting, watchdogs, pets; i.e. all dogs) routinely. They will also mate with or be mated by coyotes or dogs when estrus and opportunity present themselves, leaving the female to whelp the mixed litter either back at some barn or in a den at some remote location.

Wolves kill and eat calves, cows, steers, lambs, sheep, and other livestock. They harass the herds and flocks such that the livestock loses weight, fails to put on weight, reduces reproduction and behave in ways that increase problems, time investments and costs for owners and their employees as well as consumers. The results are evident in the US in herd reductions, grazing allotment closures, ranch sales and local community losses of taxes and economic activity. In Europe the losses of sheep and shepherding activity continues to grow while the loss of grazing land utilization and the costs to owners reportedly are not only economic but also include harms to their mental health and their families.

Wolves reduce big game herds and thereby hunting opportunity; and thereby hunting revenue for wildlife conservation and management; and thereby government management and protection of the fish and wildlife resources for people of growing areas of The Lower 48 States and European Countries where wolves are becoming more numerous and their populations more dense. World-famous elk and moose populations in Idaho and Montana have seen steep declines. Moose in Minnesota have declined as wolves have increased such that they are no longer numerous enough to be hunted. Elk, moose and deer all decline and often most precipitously in a few short years of the arrival of uncontrolled wolves. Fawns and calves of these species along with pregnant females are particularly vulnerable and highly preferred by wolves. Not only do wolves learn quickly how and where to find them, like pregnant cows and newborn young, wolves often disable the female only to eat out her rear-end to pull out and eat the highly-desired fawn or calf she is carrying, leaving her to die a lingering death. It does not take many years of this to notice severe declines in numbers of these animals just as any countries’ human population that falls below replacement and necessary reproduction/morbidity numbers and ratios can attest. Unlike the various wildlife studies based on remote areas and uninhabited islands that infer a reputed balance between wolves and their prey such that wolves decrease after they reduce their prey animals and then plants like willows increase as wolf prey are reduced and then the prey species once again increase due to increased food and reduced wolf numbers to be followed by an increase in wolves as the prey increase in numbers and availability: the realities are that in a settled landscape when the prey (elk, deer, moose, etc.) decrease (and animal owners pen up smaller herds) the wolves adopt new techniques and determination to get at the livestock plus they shift to killing more pets and like North American coyotes learn to eat garbage and other items in yards and suburbs during the night. Confrontations between kids taking out garbage, moms walking the family pet dog or elderly folks walking to mailboxes will naturally increase and the probability of fateful encounters will increase accordingly. No one asks, discusses or defends a certain death or injury rate or numbers to humans that is “worth” living with wolves. Wolves, dogs (domestic and free-roaming) and coyotes are all smart and adaptive omnivores and the expectation that when they reduce their wild prey base they will quietly decline in numbers when other options are available, is foolish. Public comments about this particular phenomenon in recent years reveal a widespread reveling and exuberant celebrations by environmental/animal rights persons and their organization that the wolves are steadily eliminating hunting, grazing by domestic animals and rural economic health as goals to be applauded far more than the reputed shifts in wild animal presence and numbers associated with wolves. Some consider this the true or primary hidden agenda driving wolf spreading and protection by government fiats.

Wolves, more than free-roaming dogs or coyotes are notoriously hard to hunt. They quickly turn nocturnal and secretive when pressed. They do not come to bait or calls consistently. Historically, when severe controls were desired, guns, traps, snares, M-44’s (scented ball that triggers a poison shell into the animal’s mouth), poisons, denning (killing pups in the den), dogs, aerial gunning (especially on snow) and many more things were employed. When it was agreed that extermination was necessary, all of these were used and even possees (local militias of law-abiding citizens enlisted to hunt down and catch dangerous criminals and, yes, even wolves) were formed where men rode for weeks hunting down the last wolves over large areas or in the case of an island like Ireland, special, large and fierce dogs were bred and maintained to run down and kill remaining wolves.

Since wolves move stealthily over large areas in a non-routine, haphazard manner; consistent and accurate censuses year after year for comparisons or trend analyses are impossible. This fact combined with self-serving government agendas that quite often excuse game disappearances as climate change, behavioral anomalies or undiagnosed diseases often create year-to-year wolf population estimates apparently driven more by the political and public relations agendas of bureaucrats, lobbyists and politicians than reality.

Wolf supporters and bureaucrats are largely determined to oppose not only methods (trapping, snares, dogs, poisons, aerial gunning, denning, etc.) of wolf control: they are constantly seeking donations, suing and lobbying to prevent any controls. While initial hunting programs, at best, have taken no more than 10-15% of wolf populations annually, such annual takes have negligible effects on either wolf population growth or on wolf behavior. Ironically, it is actually the sort of game harvest percentages meant to spur production in both birds and mammals as fewer animals are sent into the winter to share available food and thus guaranteeing healthier and more numerous reaching spring more capable of raising more and larger litters. To reduce a dense wolf population usually requires a 45-70% or more per year reduction for 5-7 years or more and then a 30% reduction or more per year ever-after. This necessarily ignores the lessened impacts of such controls when conducted in a patchwork fashion considering CLOSED private property, restricted government enclaves and neighboring jurisdictions where controls are prohibited and are thus continually providing a constant inflow from burgeoning wolf populations in such nearby unmanaged (for wolves) areas. Effective control harvests are impossible today in both The Lower 48 US States and European wolf areas due to fierce opposition, government indifference and lack of an understood public rationale for such harvests because the inevitable public outcry for such controls is only beginning to grow and it must overcome decades of lies and propaganda. As public realization and understanding of the intolerable harms caused by wolves in settled landscapes grows, the same human/wolf incidents as were documented in our ancestors’ communities caused by historic wolf problems and that spurred our forefathers to expend the scarce time and treasure to take drastic, long-term measures to the point of exterminating wolves are sure to result even in our modern technology-masters-all society as human casualties and damages mount and are no longer deniable..

All of the foregoing wolf reality is arrayed against:

-Scientists that claim that wolves do not reduce game populations or livestock and only reproduce slowly due to a reluctance to breed by submissive wolves, a phenomenon that curiously does not exist in either dogs or coyotes.

-School teachers repeatedly telling young students those wolves are necessary, good and of no danger to anyone who behaves correctly.

-Media agendas that ignore wolf harms, publish wolf public-relations articles as “science”, and marginalize negative wolf reports and people that live with and are affected by wolves.

-Bureaucrats that promise ranchers and sheep herders compensation, then call depredation losses everything but wolf-caused and quickly run out of scarce dollars as the wolves get established and compensation for wolf damage is shown to have the priority and support of government research into plastic surgery for animals for governments awash in debt and crumbling infrastructure.

-Bureaucrats and politicians that tell the Countries and States under them that once the wolves are established be central government fiat, the Countries, States and Local Communities are responsible for maintaining certain numbers (despite their being difficult to accurately count) or else the higher government will step back in and be ruthless about reaching and maintaining those levels.

-A fantasy being presented worldwide as fact, that what plants and animals were once on this or that piece of ground 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000 years ago should or must be on that ground once again. No matter that human settlement, development and change of the landscape, weather, and present-day human activities in all their changing and beneficial complexity have made that piece of ground no more hospitable to or suitable for uncontrolled species like wolves than for free-ranging elephants or bison (wisent) or grizzly bears. NOTE, just this morning I read in The India Times that free-roaming bison (Asian Water Buffalo) have killed seven rural Indians in separate incidents in just the past 12 months; and only last week a lady In Montana asked me to provide her comments regarding a UWS federal/state proposal to establish free-roaming buffalo (bison) herds in the farmland/pasturelands of central Montana. A similar federal program to forcibly protect and spread grizzly bears that are killing livestock as well as killing and injuring people in the NW US is also underway as I write.

-A gaggle of hidden agendas from bureaucrats seeking more authority, budget, and personnel; and scientists seeking more grants, tenure, and recognition: to organizations working to eliminate hunting, eliminate grazing, and rural populations; and groups seeking rights for animals, significantly reduced human populations worldwide and an end to all animal utilization by humans.

The airwaves, newspapers and classrooms are crowded today with stories of:

-The importance of apex predators.

-The need to restore the rural environment.

-The need for and legitimacy of forcible clearance of rural precincts.

-The importance of the native ecosystem and native species.

-The harmful environmental effects of rural people, rural practices and excess humans.

-The need for Washington, Brussels and the UN to have more money and more authority.

- Hunters, grazers, loggers, and most rural residents being both ignorant and bent on destroying the environment, the ecosystem and life as we know it unless ruled minutely and ruthlessly.

All this goes on as:

- Wolves are having growing impacts on European sheep flocks, shepherds, rural areas and rural residents as wolf numbers and densities grow in Italy, Germany, France, and Spain.

- Expanding wolf populations in Finland, Sweden and Norway are decreasing big game numbers and creating all manner of livestock and human safety concerns.

- British and Scottish environmentalists, politicians and University biologists are working to introduce wolves into Scotland.

- Dense and uncontrolled wolf populations in Russia and many former Eastern Bloc Countries supply an endless flow of wolves into Eastern and Central European Countries from Lithuania and Finland to Hungary, Slovenia and Italy.

- European Union politicians, bureaucrats and environmental/animal rights’ lobbyists resist authorizing any actions by shepherds, rural residents concerned about safety and health threats, hunters, dog owners and other rural Europeans to control wolves or to employ active protections for their families, livelihoods and property being killed and threatened by wolves.

- European Union administrators are basically opposed to authorizing any increased gun use by rural Europeans and use of devices like traps and snares.

- Likewise, EU administrators resist bear depredation controls in places like Finland where robust bear populations, supplemented by Russian bears that expand into Finland from uncontrolled and constantly expanding and scattering bear populations.

- All of the above are either ignored by or supported by urban Europeans that, like their urban American and Canadian cousins, are evolving to be indifferent to rural harms and problems.

- More federal kennel-raised wolves are being released in Arizona despite strong local objections.

- Minnesota wolves that have decimated the state’s moose population (and hunting) and are currently decreasing the deer population are the subject of a lawsuit to bar any hunting or trapping of wolves (ironically, despite the stimulative effect of the small potential harvest on the very dense and robust wolf population.)

- Idaho is trying to fund a statewide initiative with tax dollars to reduce the wolves that have decimated moose and elk hunting (and numbers, license revenue and associated dollars generated by big game hunting). What the long-term controls and funding sources portend is anyone’s guess.

- As Washington State and Oregon State have begun hosting resident wolf packs from neighboring Idaho, ranchers have been cajoled into accepting “compensation” for livestock losses to wolves that is underfunded and as likely to continue being available as is are liquor allowances for a legislature. Simultaneously the state bureaucrats tell the public wolf numbers are curiously steady in this new food-rich habitat and that decreasing elk and moose harvests and licenses are only temporary and due to everything imaginable Except Wolves.

- Wolves from Great Lakes States are scattering into Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio where federal and state laws jeopardize any hunter or control agent that kills what he thought was a coyote or free-roaming dog and some post-facto government DNA Analyst declares is a wolf. Similarly in the West, Rocky Mountain States’ Wolves from introduced stock are scattering into California, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to hospitable habitats.

- As Texas refused vigorously to accept federal wolves (like Wyoming did successfully), federal thugs have “worked with” (i.e. funded) wolf releases in N Mexico just S of the Rio Grande River across from Texas.

- US federal bureaucrats have made much of “Returning Management of (Restored) ‘Endangered’ Wolves to State Governments” in states like Minnesota, Idaho and Montana. First, wolves were never “endangered” other than under the Endangered Species Act’s politically-driven agendas. Second, this fictional “Return” is in reality a move to make states finance all the wolf problems with both state wildlife funds (to divert them from hunting programs) and from state tax dollars where their future looks like the future of continued state funding for free barbershops for politicians. The kicker is that, if the state lets the wolf numbers go below some set level (how do you know, how to prove, especially in court?), the federal government will step back in and seize protection of the wolves. All the while those opposed to wolf control or hunting or trapping or snaring or aerial shooting, etc. of wolves go into federal courts and help federal bureaucrats modify regulations to obtain key federal court rulings to expand and solidify federal authorities and jurisdictions over the wolves “Under State Authority”.

- US State fish and wildlife bureaucrats increasingly view themselves as extensions of federal bureaucrats, federal programs and federal funding while they increasingly disregard any responsibility to the state residents that employ them. This makes redress of rural complaints and problems more difficult as the federal bureaucrats set the rules for all actions by co-opting state bureaucrats and manipulating federal courts by working with select “partners and stakeholders” by designation of friendly federal courts and federal judges presented with jointly-designed (by bureaucrats and radicals) lawsuits. The flow of all federal US tax dollars makes many state politicians and big city politicians (and their employees) behave the same as the fish and wildlife bureaucrats, thus further marginalizing rural people and their concerns.

- Gun control is a large aspect of living with wolves that is exacerbating problems. European and Canadian laws and habits opposed to handguns make consistent availability of a gun for unexpected wolf confrontations from dog walkers encountering wolves and wolves encountered in close quarters like barns or fenced yards, to shepherds encountering wolves depredating at unexpected times and in unexpected places; difficult to say the least. European laws and customs extend to areas where, as in Russia, any gun possession or ammunition availability is only made by special and narrow government dispensation. US federal politicians, although they take an oath to uphold the US Constitution stating “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” are on an undisguised rampage to violate the Constitution in this regard and regulate and then ban over time handguns, military-looking rifles, all rifles, clips, magazines and shotguns to the cheers of urban politicians that blame all of the US’ urban woes on guns. This, like wolf protection and spread is applauded by urban voters and political donors. The bottom line here is that real wolf control, real and consistent wolf management, control of wolf depredations, dealing with dangerous wolf habituations (homes, schools, bus stops, etc.), and protection in the case of wolf incidents from rabies to an outright attack is both disappearing and increasingly only done by government officials, if at all. This not only is after-the-fact and expensive, actual wolf control is made unachievable and impractical over time and the future of rural people doomed to live with wolves is steadily becoming neither pretty nor bright.

Scientific papers, lawsuit arguments, media propaganda and government pronouncements are rife with statements and questions like:

- When is a wolf a coyote? Who established DNA Standards?

- Is the wolf trapped far away and released by government THE actual wolf that once inhabited (fill-in-the-blank)?

- Any wolf attack on a human is “abnormal”.

- People must learn to “live” with wolves.

- Maybe the cattle and/or sheep don’t “belong” out there.

- Wolves were here first.

- Wolves control prey species while regulated hunting doesn’t.

- Wolves are good and beneficial. Hunting is bad and harmful.

- Hunting should be outlawed just like grazing and logging.

- People should keep their pets and kids inside and watch them closely when they are outside.

- Rural areas are too heavily populated and their natural resource uses and demands are destroying the ecosystem.

- Wolf hunting destroys the wolves’ social structure and their reproductive capabilities.

- Only alpha wolves mate.

- Wolves don’t decimate big game populations and wolf depredations on livestock are vastly overrated by rural people looking for government handouts.

- Plant communities blossom, like semi-arid valleys after a thunderstorm, when wolves kill ungulates and also cause them to “behave” differently.

- Wolves are the “apex” predators that are leading the way to the total restoration of native species in a native ecosystem.

- Wolves should be maintained with hunting program funds but they should not be hunted, trapped or controlled.

- Those that do not understand “ecosystems”, “trophic cascades” and “natural processes and cycles” are like climate change deniers and should be similarly marginalized and denied any part in things they do not grasp.

So what? It is the Law! What do you want to do, kill all the wolves? All these statements and more are constantly thrown at anyone addressing this issue. So here is what must be done.

First a word of caution. Speaking candidly about this is like talking to many of my relatives that have grown indifferent to or rabidly opposed to the religion of our forefathers, while I have not. I say this not to compare you to any of my relatives but to note that ANY discussion of any topic involving moral dimensions or basic values is quickly treated by such a relative as a disguised attempt on my part to “bring them back” or “convert them”. As I describe the following solution, some will be hearing me trying to tell you how to vote or how to think. I apologize beforehand but YOU must think through that and consider what I am about to say if you are to have ANY hope of resolving the wolf issue before us.

THE BASIC PROBLEM is that very powerful central governments and international “Bodies” now control all wild plants and animals. Don’t try to argue,”oh our state still manages fishing”, or birds or oak trees. The facts are that what Brussels and Washington have done with wolves and what they plus Toronto have done with United Nations’ Treaties and Conventions is to set precedents and a roadmap to seizing any and all wild plant and animal jurisdiction and authority when it suits their purposes. Conventions on Trade in Wildlife, Wetlands of International Significance, Marine Mammal Compacts, Endangered claims in courts, Native Species claims in courts, Invasive Species claims in courts, Animal Welfare claims in court and Central Government Legislation and UN Treaty Negotiations that would have been unbelievable 50 years ago have all been incremental moves giving these central authorities all of the jurisdiction and authority over the wolf debacle we are faced with today.

While we bemoan the injustice and perfidy of government wolf actions; as I write the US government is trying to similarly force free-roaming buffalo herds into Montana (where the federal wolves were first released) and into the Arizona/Utah borderlands N of the Grand Canyon on a mix of federal and Indian lands from which they would spread much like the federal wolf release on an Idaho Indian Reservation. This morning’s news featured the arrest of a Nevada rancher for taking pictures from a state road of federal resource enforcers seizing his cattle herd while dressed as snipers with sniper scopes on their rifles and police dogs that attacked the rancher when he failed to get back in his legally parked vehicle. These are the “idealistic” “environmental workers” you deal with concerning wolves and will be dealing with when buffalo once again “roam, where the deer and the antelope play.”

Now the following is all-US oriented, although I think I have a good grasp of Canadian and European governments I hesitate to write as if I do for the certainty that some innocent mistake on my part would create a world of misunderstanding. Therefore the following applies equally to Europeans and Canadians in large and small measure and are presented only as ideas about how to fix what we agree is wrong.

Whether you believe that all wild plants band animals were once under the authority of lesser levels of governments or if you believe that wild plants have never been under lesser levels of governments: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER ALL WILD PLANTS AND ANIMALS, should always be, first and foremost and permanently if at all possible UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOWEST AND MOST RESPONSIVE (to human needs) LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. This is called the principle of subsidiarity. It sets limits on state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies and tends toward the establishment of true international order. There is no argument that the current “top-down”, “central government rules-all” system divides rural and urban societies and establishes an international order that is little more than a process whereby dictatorial (the proper word) governments issue orders to be obeyed by all at the behest of whatever faction controls such government or is financing it.

Think of all the “is it a hybrid”, or “we really have two thousand, six hundred and seventy-two wolves”, or “see the wolves REALLY DID kill all the moose”, or the “video camera shows that the young boy caused the attack by his improper behavior in trying to run away” arguments in courts or in newspaper articles or in Letters and meetings with Legislators and Bureaucrats as simply blows back and forth during a boxing match wherein the judges are relatives of the guy you are up against. As long as the REAL POWER remains at the central or HIGHEST level of government, they can simply change the rules or the law and even when you feel you “won” something, the next time your opponents get “their” guys elected they can – and will – pass a new law or write a new regulation that either delegitimizes your “victory” or makes it worthless as they simply check it and move into other items like restoring “Pre-Roman” plants and animals or releasing lions or hyenas since they “once inhabited” (have YOUR archeologist fill-in this blank.)

In the US, this means positioning or re-positioning all authority and jurisdiction over wild plants and animals at the COUNTY (and not even the State) level. Certainly species like Marine Mammals and Certain Migratory Birds could be placed at the federal level for reasons of Interstate Commerce, Hunting and Management of movable stocks and flocks and legitimate common interests with foreign powers who share in the benefits and presence of such animals. Likewise, an effective federal authority should be established to prevent harmful plants and animals from being imported into the US as contrasted with the current system wherein the federal law enforcers are equipped and trained as military fighters to raid guitar stores and farmyards while ignoring the importation of Asian carp that destroy our rivers and pythons and boa constrictors that are only beginning to wreak untold havoc in southern states.

County politicians and County employees are closest to, neighbors of, and liable to voter wrath of ANY (State, City, and Federal) level of government. The US government was conceived to authorize a federal government with very specific powers to protect state governments that represented and protected the County governments THAT REPRESENTED AND PROTECTED THE COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES THAT MADE UP THE NATION. This lowest level, the County, and NOT the highest level, the federal, is where the rubber meets the road regarding whether some or how many wolves should prey on domestic animals or kill dogs or eliminate hunting or eliminate big game, or spread disease, or pay “compensation” for some or any of the property that wolves destroy. This is why what is perhaps our most important County official, OUR Sheriff, is most often the official on the citizen’s side when federal snipers, attack dogs, numbers and lawlessness are employed to evict an old woman from her home that a Park bureaucrats wants, or when federal enforcers seize livestock and other property from those they want to intimidate or take from.

Many US States, like US Senators (2 from each state) have assumed this urban-preference/rural-dismissal bias as a result of powerful urban donors and numerous voters that keep them in office. Issues like wolves are simply “throw-away” crumbs to urban voters for continued or increased support. It is for reasons like that, that I recommend that state governments be re-oriented to protecting what Local (County) governments and their residents want for their own County. If they want more elk and moose, then state government works in that regards and if they want wolves and no hunting or livestock or dogs, so be it. If neighboring jurisdictions refuse to control wolves, let those that would have no wolves set the fate of any wolf seen anywhere in the County at any moment. Counties would be more cautious about spending money and therefore County Ordinances that employed landowners and residents with leeway to take action, orders to landowners refusing to control wolves on their land with charges and liens for the County to employ a contractor to take needed action. County governments with teeth would make these federal/state buffalo ventures a thing of the past in any settled-landscape County where residents agreed “not-in-my County.” As part and parcel of this repositioning of jurisdiction and authority is a resurrection of the abandoned legal notion that somehow when federal agents with federal tax dollars buy or ease property IN ANY COUNTY, that somehow transforms the property into some fairyland as far from the County as the Falkland Islands. This pernicious notion has fostered the arrogance of federal land managers that they have NO responsibility toward local communities or local governments as well as their bureaucrat overseers in Washington in the regulations they write or the laws they help Congressional staff personnel write for their bosses to support the court cases they help the environmentalists to file in certain courts known to provide reliable (to them) decisions and precedents for the future.

So, what do I mean when I say “re-orient” government jurisdiction and authority?

- Elect strong and committed County officials.

- Support County officials in what they do.

- Choose strong County officials to support for State offices.

- Choose strong and proven State officials for federal offices.

- Return selection of US Senators to state legislatures.

- Elect Governors that think, act and make your state their foremost concern.

- Repeal and amend the federal laws that underpin wolf/grizzly bear/buffalo tyranny.

- Enact local animal control and management programs for local communities.

- Reduce federal and state tax rates (reflecting reduced responsibilities) and enact local tax structures to cover LOCAL actions approved by LOCAL taxpayers that can and will vote the likes of current state and federal politicians out of office when they abuse citizens by buying votes and oppressing rural residents as they are doing as I write this.

If this or something like it isn’t adopted, there are only two choices I see ahead. Either we just suck it up and tell our kids and grandkids to move to the city and look for work because rural living is only going to get more inhospitable and less possible, or we change the government structure however we can. If wolves and all this environmental tyranny is really important, it is like Finland deciding to reject the overtures of a foreign power in the 1940’s or Ukraine deciding that recently rejecting EU or NATO overtures was not where they wanted to go, or Americans deciding that Prohibition (of alcohol) was neither tolerable or American. This environmental animal tyranny is no different in the settled landscapes of Europe or Canada or The Lower 48 States. There is no solution for such an effort run by far-off, all-powerful governments beholden to political factions committed to the destruction of rural people, their culture, their traditions, their families, and their very ways of life: no solution but one, put the power to create these situations with THOSE AFFECTED by the actions.

Anything else is either a placebo or a sleeping pill meant to put you to sleep until it is all over.

Jim Beers
8 April 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: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Fascist Holder Proposes Tracking Bracelet for Guns

Once again the fascist regime of Barrack Obama is proposing what Attorney General Eric Holder calls “common sense” gun control. The lying, thieving, punk and thug claims that all guns should have a tracking bracelet, complete with biometrics that can be tracked by fascist government 24 hours a day and use of the gun will not occur unless the right REGISTERED and MONITORED SLAVE is wearing the bracelet. I’m sure that through the bracelet, fascist government authorities can and will render the gun inoperable any time it wants to. Therefore, no real need for further gun control. Fascism will be in control.

I have written before, gun ownership by Americans is the only remaining obstacle for complete take over by corporate and government fascism. I’ve said that one way or another they WILL find a way to disarm Americans.

And this is “common sense” gun control? <<<Read More>>>

Grofaz and American Guinea Pigs – Take a Deep Breath and Hold It

“President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has been subjecting unknowing human guinea pigs to high levels of carcinogens and potentially lethal pollutants in order to justify tough new air quality standards.

To make matters worse, EPA has been carrying out these egregiously immoral and unethical human experiments in which subjects are made to inhale freshly pumped-in diesel truck exhaust fumes without advising them of the risk to their health.

Such EPA-funded studies have reportedly been carried out at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Rochester (N.Y.), University of Southern California, University of Michigan, and elsewhere.”<<<Read More>>>

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com