November 20, 2014

(America’s Unique) Definition of individualism

Individualism means the priority of sacred individual rights over the rights/power of the commune or of fascist Nationalism.

The word sacred refers to the descriptor God-given to describe rights that America recognizes as preceding the writing of the US Constitution.

The words commune and fascist Nationalism include the concepts of any region such as in regionalism, globalism, environmentalism and necessarily includes the concept of habitat.

Recalling the Nazis, Nationalism was the priority of the nation over the individual wherein the rights of the individuals were bound (root meaning of the word fascist) and individual rights were denied for the greater common good of Germany. [See attached photo.][“These dead gave their spirits for the glory of Greater Germany.”]

I’ve seen a corruption of the word individualism by Communists, Putin in particular, and a foreign misunderstanding of American individualism by at least one liberal or left-wing Australian Catholic. America’s Protestant roots might also explain why the expression of individualism of the French and American revolutions might not be well understood in the melting pot of America’s many cultures.

Personalism, an old (but not irrelevant) concept in the Catholic religious community is similar but seems to be more of a term of art in the religious/philosophical field, while American individualism, according to my understanding as of this writing, is a term of art in the legal rights/political field.

Individualism as I refer to it herein, relates not to the person rather to the rights (power) of the person as an individual in competition against the rights (power) of the Commune. The individual wins against the Government because of the priority of the God-given sacred fundamental right of the individual to Free Speech.

For example, let’s take a look at what the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts) said about the God-given right to Free Speech in U.S. V. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010):
“The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).” [Emphasis added.]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

To understand the uniquely American concept of individualism use Livy’s dialectic by considering the statements of those who oppose American individualism. Hegel (hence Marx) states that, “Freedom is the recognition of the necessity of mutual coercion.” [Quote is attributed by adherent Hardin to Hegel.] Russian Communist Putin described individualism as dangerous. And Obama in his typically inexact and rambling way stated essentially that, Personal freedom is preserved by collective action. Similar remarks are attributed to Hillary Clinton.

Redefining individualism as similar to hedonism, egoism or anarchy defeats the connection between individual rights and God as against the all powerful centralized government. In order to counter the mischaracterization of individualism by foreigners who easily confuse individualism with hedonism, egoism or anarchy consider this: American individualism is not a concept that pits man against God.

Rather the concept of American individualism is God and man together against the otherwise overwhelming power of government. This is not some sort of anti-government conspiracy stuff. The automatically-arising competition between the power of government and the protection of God-given human rights (power of the individual) consumes the writers of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers of the late 1700’s.

If the Founders were not cognizant of the overwhelming power of centralized government, then why would they devise the separation of powers so thoroughly? The Legislature is divided into two and its laws must survive a veto by a third party, the Executive. The Judiciary is divided into three courts with original trial, appellate review and then the Supreme Court. The Executive is one but may be removed by the Legislature. The Legislature (Congress) creates the law but may not interpret it. Expounding upon the law is the duty and function of the Judiciary. The Executive enforces the law.

Now think about the lack of separation of powers in agencies that make their own rules, interpret them, establish their own facts, enforce the result, and then, despite being a biased party in litigation, demand that the Judiciary to give them total deference.

The writers of the Constitution knew their history. The Magna Charta, now about 800 years old, is the basis of human rights, human freedom and thereby human dignity found in our federal and state Constitutions. It provided that humans would not be deprived of life, liberty or property without resort to a jury of their peers, yet that is exactly what bureaucratic agencies are currently allowed to get away with.

As the exCommunist noted in the ’50’s era book “The God That Failed”, the largest most controlling monopolistic corporation is but a mere pygmy when compared to the power of government. Consistent with that thought, consider that even the largest US corporations don’t operate SWAT teams but the smallest subdivision of US government can usually figure out how to get one called up if needed.

I heard someone say that the reason the expression of individualism in the French revolution failed, but the American experiment worked, was because Americans connected God to their individual rights. And the French did not. So, when God is taken out of government and schools, Constitutional rights simply become, as in any Communist country, an illegitimate Kaganesque ad hoc balancing test between the interest of atheist man in rights (powers) against the interest of atheist government in rights (powers). In such contests, the government always wins.

So to reiterate what Justice Roberts said:
“As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).”

Without connecting God to our individual rights, we cannot as easily recognize the loss of our human dignity when human rights to property are taken away from us. In labor law, employment is a recognized property right the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action by the individual whose rights are violated. The Endangered
Species Act now centrally controls, outside of the three branches of government, our private property rights. Central control abolishes private property ala the Communist Manifesto. (Last two pages Chapter Two.) By signing the ESA, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists. “Just following orders” was no defense to the Nazis and should be no defense to those “just following orders” in the various anti-American, anti-human liberation movements.

Individual rights should not be confused with group rights. Group rights violate our Founders’ doctrine of equality under the law and show up as corporate cronyism (that resemble Communist oligarchy) and as special rights for small politically well-connected groups of humans and of endangered animals.

The following describes individual rights, that is, individualism, the priority of the rights of the individual over the government and its bureaucracies. Some states’ rights are included. The following is not a verbatim recitation, rather the list of paraphrased rights is to demonstrate much of what we do not hear on today’s professional agitator propaganda media outlets. Capitalization is all over the map in the Constitution and was followed in some instances and ignored in others.

The people shall have the Writ of Habeas Corpus available except under certain circumstances.

The individual shall be free from Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Individuals shall have limits on taxation.

There shall be no preferences toward one state over another.

Appropriations by law are necessary to authorize withdrawal of federal money from the Treasury.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the US.

The trial of all crimes shall be by jury.

Each citizen shall have all privileges and immunities of one state in all the other states.

The United States shall protect each state from invasion.

Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or to peaceably assemble.

The individual shall have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people shall be free from the mandatory quartering of troops in their homes.

Individuals shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

No accusations of crime against individuals shall lie unless made in writing to give proper notice of the allegations and in order to provide for a proper defense.

No one shall be subjected to double jeopardy. [Regarding WOTUS, the central controllers at the EPA want fines up to $37,500 per day of violation.]

No one can be compelled to testify against oneself. [Compare that to certain administrative state proceedings that resemble the Star Chambers of old.]

No one can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. [“Of law” has a special meaning that excludes the extralegal administrative state proceedings.] [“Due process” is a phrase of art for which whole books have been written. The concept includes substantive (authentic, my word) due process meaning the Constitutional creation of the law to include proper notice to the public, written notice of any alleged violations, and more.]

No property shall be taken for the governments’ purposes [of saving animals] without just compensation.

An accused shall have the right of speedy and public trial [No agency Star Chamber trials.] by jury where the crime was alleged to have been committed, to be informed of the allegation, to confront the accusers, to have compulsory process for providing defense witnesses and for a defense lawyer.

Where the amount of controversy shall exceed $20, a litigant shall have the right to demand a jury. [Again, environmental fine of $37,500 with no trial.]

The individual shall be free from excessive bail, excessive fines and free from cruel and unusual punishments. [$37,500 fine, daily.]

The individual’s rights set out shall not be disparaged by the numbering order set out in the Bill of Rights.

There shall be no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. [That is after conviction, not just because you decide to engage in a certain kind of regulated business.]

No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the individual. [Seems to me that economic rights are privileges and immunities of property ownership that should not be abridged simply by administrative rule that are not enacted first by law, that is, representative government.]

Equal protection under the law appears in three important places not including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

The individual’s right to vote appears in several places also.

No where in there do I see any right of a small politically well-connected group of pinnated grouse, of tiny fish or of spotted owls to force an individual to give up human rights to private property or to private property self-employment rights. In fact, what I see is the establishment of a humans-first public policy that Congress had no right to alter by passing the Endangered Species Act.

Individualism

We’re Suing Over a Drought of Common Sense

“Our motto at Pacific Legal Foundation is we never, never, never give up. Solid evidence is our commitment to challenge the federal government’s draconian cuts to water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to San Joaquin Valley farms, rural communities, and millions of Californians.

Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)This wrong-headed bureaucratic water squeeze — to help Delta smelt — has devastated communities and crippled one of the nation’s most fertile, productive agricultural areas that feeds much of the nation. California’s natural drought has been made all the worse by a drought of common sense!”<<<Read More>>>

Does it Really Matter Which Party Controls the U.S. Senate?

If You Really Think It Matters Which Party Controls the Senate, Answer These Questions (November 6, 2014)

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog…

My questions not on the list:
Will the new Republican Senate shut down Agenda 21, reverse damaging ESA issues past and presently ongoing across the Estates? Will they stop using controlled opposition environmentalist groups that push for “laws” that harm free will, freedom of conscience and movement of the common man that only benefits the corporations behind the false environmentalism paradigm and open up a real free market economy and shut down the elite monopolized collectivist capitalist economy that only benefits those super mega large corporate frauds that want every resource locked down and preserved only for their use and not our use? Not likely.

The Anti-Economics of Drunken Lowlife Karl Marx

Marx’ slanders of the shared prosperity of the middle class, the bourgeoisie he called them, at the end of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto with the now forever discredited as delusional notion that centralized control of private property increases total production.

Hence we see groundwater boards conducting water grabs and sending an annual supply for 500,000 Californians out to sea for the benefit of the commune’s tiny endangered fish – during a severe drought; activist bureaucratic agencies cooking their economic numbers and the disastrous devastation of the lumber-rich Northwestern US, Curry County Oregon, now beyond two decades of subhuman impoverishment.

The Endangered Species Act, when used to enslave us through the central control of our sacred individual human rights is pure Marxism.

Central planning and control destroys America’s exceptionalism to Communism.
It destroys the private property rights that made Americans have the highest per capita income in the world ever since the 1830’s.

The use of central control is like planning for the future by burning your own house down, the exact same description I saw someone use to describe Keynesian “economics”. Sounds like anti-economics to me.

Livy

Sneak Preview III – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290Here’s another glimpse into “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” This portion is found in Chapter II, dedicated to understanding the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

“It is vitally important that readers fully understand the power of the Endangered Species Act. For without that understanding, future discussions about wolves in the United States, or any other “threatened” or “endangered” species, can make little sense. What once began and was sold to the American people as a law that would guarantee the protection and preservation of species that might unnecessarily be destroyed due mostly to man’s efforts at growth, has morphed into a mammoth, crippling law that by some standards is the most powerful and destructive law in the world.

It took years of research and study of this law, reaching far beyond the crafted words of the law itself, to discover that the Endangered Species Act is only one small part of a global effort to cede rights, destroy sovereignty, individual and collective, control land and the resources within that land; to breed scarcity and economic strife. The ESA is not a law simply to save an animal or a plant.

Whether we like the law or not, whether we disagree or agree, whether anything I write will have an effect on you, matters not. We have the law of the Endangered Species Act and it is what we must deal with, but please, approach the Act with correct and complete knowledge of what the Act can and will do when abused and administered corruptly.”

Wyoming Considers Delisting Wolves the Way Idaho and Montana Got Theirs Done

Yes, the precedent was set when certain members of Congress attached a “rider” bill to a Congressional budget bill in 2011 that put wolves in Idaho and Montana off the Endangered Species Act List, also providing a clause that disallowed any legal challenges. Was it the right thing to do? Was it the best thing to do? You decide.

But because it appeared at the time that it was the only way anybody was going to get beyond unrelenting, oppressive lawsuits to get some kind of control over a rapidly growing wolf population, the action of attaching a rider to a budget bill resulted in “delisted” wolves and something that sort of resembles wolf control.

At the time of the rider bill fiasco, Idaho and Montana tossed Wyoming under the proverbial bus leaving them to fend for themselves to gain management over wolves. Wyoming was successful in time but only for awhile, until a Washington, D.C. judge ruled in a recent lawsuit that Wyoming’s wolf management plan was inadequate for further and sufficient protection of the gray wolf. Now Wyoming’s gray wolf population is back under federal protection and Wyoming government and citizens are frustrated because they did everything necessary to gain approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now it appears that some legislators in Wyoming are considering taking the route Idaho and Montana did in 2011, and getting wolves delisted for good and to put a stop, once and for all, to the rash of continued, money-making lawsuits.

“I think we have to consider legislative action now. I don’t see any other recourse,” said U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis. “We have done everything the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked of us and more.”

In revealing some of her frustration, Lummis said that it seems that no matter what Wyoming has done, it’s never enough.

“The fact is that no matter what we do and no matter how successful we are at recovering the wolf, certain groups remain unsatisfied and unwilling to accept victory,” Lummis said. “Now it is time to pursue a legislative solution.”

Whether you agree or disagree that attaching a bill to a larger congressional bill, or creating stand-alone legislation, is the right way to go, one has to consider the corner that environmental and animal rights groups have put the rest of citizenry in. Historically, the majority of outdoor sportsmen, landowners, ranchers, etc. are not the protesting sort of people, looking to take every person who looks at them funny, to court and/or insisting the rest of the world live like they do. Environmentalists and their ilk are. Maybe the environmentalists should reconsider where to draw their dictatorial lines in the sand.

A lawyer for Earthjustice doesn’t like the idea of congressional action to stop the lawsuits.

“There are always situations where people in specific areas want to get exceptions from the act for their own localized interests,” Preso said. “But that doesn’t serve the interest of the nation as a whole, which is blessed with an incredible wildlife heritage that still exists today largely as a result of the Endangered Species Act.”

Perhaps Preso should have considered that before running to the activist judges for help making money. Serious argument could be made as to any actions his organization has done has proven to “serve the interest of the nation as a whole.”

Preso also states that we enjoy “incredible wildlife” because of the Endangered Species Act. I, and I know there are thousands more, who would rightfully say that we enjoy this wildlife despite the ESA, but more importantly in spite of fascists organizations like his.

RMEF: Silver Linings in Wyoming Wolf Management Ruling

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintains a ruling that restores federal protections to wolves in Wyoming is basically a technicality that can easily be fixed on Wyoming’s end. The State of Wyoming is in the process of adopting an emergency rule to do so.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled out of her Washington D.C. courtroom that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was wrong to rely on Wyoming’s non-binding promises to maintain a buffer above the FWS minimum of 10 breeding pair and at least 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Montana and Idaho initially had the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum, but a 50 percent “buffer” of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves was implemented for those two states.

The plaintiffs argued the following four points about the Wyoming wolf population, and they were denied a favorable ruling by Judge Jackson relative to the first three:

1. Wolves have not recovered.
2. Wolves are at risk because of a lack of genetic connectivity.
3. Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the Endangered Species Act requirements of protections over a significant part of the species’ range.
4. Wyoming’s current regulatory mechanism to insure a population of more than 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves is inadequate and represents a non-binding promise.

“There are some silver linings within this ruling handed down from Judge Jackson as she ruled against three claims made by the plaintiffs including confirmation of the fact that Wyoming’s wolf population has recovered and is not endangered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We anticipate Wyoming will be able to fix the issue with how its wolf management plan is written to satisfy the court.”

“She held that Wyoming’s plan was not sufficiently formalized to support the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 rule allowing limited take of gray wolves. We believe an emergency rule can remedy this, and I have instructed the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Attorney General to proceed accordingly,” said Wyoming Governor Matt Mead.

The State of Wyoming already asked the court to reverse the ruling. Mead also began the process to make the state’s minimum wolf population pledge legally enforceable by signing and filing an emergency rule. In the meantime, it suspended wolf hunting in the northwest part of Wyoming scheduled to begin in October. The judge’s decision also impacts year-round hunting in the rest of the state as well as landowners protecting livestock and pets.

The latest wolf count indicates a minimum of 320 packs and 1,691 wolves in the Northern Rockies as of December 31, 2013, including at least 306 wolves in 43 packs in Wyoming.

“The real shame of this continuing litigation and legal maneuvering by HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and others is the amount of American taxpayer money the judge may award them for their legal fees, all in the name of the Equal Access to Justice Act. This is a continued misuse of taxpayer dollars for an ideological agenda that has little to do with wolves. This is not conservation work,” added Allen.

Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. Puts GI Wolves Back Under GI Protection

I could say I told you so but that wouldn’t amount to anything.

This move, believable within the rigged system we are all a slave to, should come as no surprise. Perhaps, and there’s a reason to use the word “perhaps,” had the slimy politics of some, joining forces with Harry Reid and his rigged system, included Wyoming in their corrupt politics of dealing with wolves through budget bill riders, this lawsuit would not have happened. But I suppose, for some, when in Rome, they must do what Romans do.

Regardless, there is no cure. The only possible cure is a dismantling and rewriting of the Endangered Species Act, along with the Equal Access to Justice Act, but then again, within this corrupt totalitarian socialist state of slavery that we have all eagerly entered into, a rewriting would never solve the problem and would only make matters worse.

Perhaps the best solution is no solution at all. Let those who think they are protecting wolves have their way and then we will see.

I have not had time to read and study the ruling of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, but I will provide a link to the ruling and the order, along with a summary of the judgement.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case concerns the government’s decision to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the endangered species list. Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, in this consolidated case, challenge the September 30, 2012 decision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “the Service”) to remove the wolves from the list under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA” or “the Act”). See Final Rule: Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 77 Fed.Reg. 55,530 (Sept. 10, 2012) (“the 2012 rule”). The 2012 rule transferred management of the gray wolf in Wyoming from federal control to state control. Id.

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, and they maintain that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species, the level of genetic exchange shown in the record does not warrant delisting, and the gray wolf is endangered within a significant portion of its range. Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 48] (“Pls.’ Mot.”) and Pls.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 48-1] (“Pls.’ Mem.”).

The Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and deny it in part and remand the matter back to the agency because it finds that the Service could not reasonably rely on unenforceable representations when it deemed Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms to be adequate. Given the level of genetic exchange reflected in the record, the Court will not disturb the finding that the species has recovered, and it will not overturn the agency’s determination that the species is not endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range. But the Court concludes that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to rely on the state’s nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision.

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.