May 26, 2017

Bernie is So…So….So-So

BernieSoMarxist

Share

(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

Share

Want to Fight Communistic Central Control but Don’t Want to Leave the Country to Do It?

Fight the cancer of Communistic principles from the comfort of your own bunkhouse…. learn how to say No.

Joan Veon said that Public Private “Partnerships” exist to manage the assets of the government. And that would necessarily include assets that the government, usually a bureaucracy, lays claim to control.

Video of Joan Veon on public private partnerships.

All the critics are in agreement that WOTUS[Waters of the United States] is about controlling all waters, and thereby private property land use, of the US.
http://gardner.house.gov/press-release/gardner-votes-protect-colorado-wotus-rule

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/09/24/ncba-issue-another-warning-on-wotus-impact/

It ain’t rocket science. Central control of private property is pure Marxism. (Last part of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto.) Control equals wealth. Control equals ownership. Central control abolishes private property. Central, regional, national, global “planning” schemes are not legitimate options to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. Regionalism is not a safe alternative to fascist Nationalism, the evil philosophical twin to Communism that robs Americans of the sacred individual right to just compensation for takings of private property for bureaucratic purposes of controlling water quality, providing habitat for animals.

Learn how to Just Say No.

So, let’s talk about what communism is or is not. Is all central control of government assets communistic? No, don’t be silly. We are talking about the centralized control of private property and rights that are being systematically seized outside of the normal transfer of rights process and then controlled conjunctively through the administrative state and bureaucracies that are routinely being characterized as lawless by more and more legal scholars.

At some point I think people will begin to connect the take-over of private property land to other private property rights such as employment. For example, Cuba’s Slave Trade in Doctors. (May be a Paywall. Hint: You might be able to bypass the Pay Wall by placing the title in a Google search box.)

Now think about Obamacare. Does Obamacare enable public private “partnerships” to skim the difference off the labor of the enslaved, if you will, American doctors? We now find out that the Obamacare bill was intended to be obscure. And it is in many ways.

It clearly takes over a large fraction of the US economy and that is dangerous to American exceptionalism.

The reason I put the word partnership in quotes is because in a real partnership there is a sharing of profits and liabilities. But government typically dodges liability because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A public private partnership can include a publicly traded corporation that wealthy hedge fund speculators can invest in. The profit margin involved when enslaving doctors can amount to a lot of money for public private partnerships composed of small groups of politically well connected friends of the White House. In fact, such public private partnerships can hire top political figures (amoral opportunists) as safeguards against adverse legislation and or prosecution, and lend the whole scheme an air of legitimacy, of “giving back”.

Instead of true partnerships, the general concept of public private partnerships looks like a special delegation of governmental power to a select private company along with a smoke screen of borrowed sovereign immunity. Favoritism, corporate cronyism, oligarchy and monopoly were disfavored by our Founders who believed in equality under the law. Corporate cronyism fits the Communist form of government far better than the American example of equal treatment. Cronyism smacks of the idea that certain favorites are above the law.

So, let’s take a look at another specific instance of “assets of the government”. Texas has 1,500 years worth of groundwater, even if it does not rain again. Nearly all of it is privately owned. The Texas scare narrative is that we will never develop the technology to get it out of the ground. Surely, the advancement of engineering technology to extract water will not magically stop.

Through a heritage of ancient and relevant English, Spanish and French law, America, including Texas, developed sets of legal concepts that govern relationships between users of surface water with a governing authority managing that surface water and resolving conflicts between users with surface water rights. But in Texas (as in states east of the Mississippi), groundwater is owned outright by the individual land owner, the same as other underground minerals such oil and gas.

So when talking about surface water, the creation of a Texas Water Trust, Texas Water Bank, a Texas Water Development Board and water credits, and the like, are not all that unusual. But I am suspicious of the cover story when such banking and investment schemes are used in conjunction with privately owned groundwater. There is no legitimate way to use “regional planning” to plan our groundwater rights away. Regionalism, in the form of “regional planning” schemes, are not legitimate alternatives to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. I am not talking about the purely voluntary water market made up of purchased groundwater rights. Voluntariness makes a market legitimate. Trickery of planning private property rights away removes voluntariness. That is why, when it comes to private property groundwater, a water trust, water bank, a state level water board and water credits are highly suspect depending upon the source of the title to groundwater rights especially so when we learn that the Greenies in the UN’s Commission on Global Governance say things such as, “Regionalism (think Texas’ regional water planning groups) must precede Globalism.”

Here is something else that is curious. Ignoring for now the unconstitutional nature of the forced “saving” of 50% of private property groundwater, think about this. How can the selling of water credits of groundwater, that can no longer be produced (because the 50% level was reached and all groundwater production was stopped for the paramount benefit of the endangered downstream fish), not end up being some sort of securities fraud?

Now, put on the conspiracy hat for a moment.

What could be the motivation behind getting the private money of American super-rich hedge fund managers and others, even more wealthy, tied up in worthless groundwater assets that cannot be developed to their full potential because of a mandatory 50% preservation of groundwater in 50 years? (Never mind that the state cannot define 100% and that it is impossible to save 50% of something when you don’t know what 100% looked like or when it existed.)

And what about the climate change clap trap? Who or what has the clout (too big to jail?) to ignore all the pump and dump (in my opinion) going on with nearly worthless carbon credits and the climate change con job? Climate change – follow the money.

Conspiracy Hat Moment:
Is the purpose of the various asset grabs to drain the wealth of the US (and other select countries?) so it (or they) can’t fight back in the next world war? (That’s right Dorothy, war is something humans will never be able to end.)

Are America’s most wealthy being duped into duping the average US citizen with the Marxist, anti-economic theme that central control increases total production?

Or is the duping really aimed, not at the general public, but at the wealthy through a campaign that only appears to be aimed at an increasingly skeptical public?

We should remember that citizen wealth is sometimes resorted to, even as recently as the current Ukrainian crisis by an impoverished and unprepared nation. Oil tycoon buys batteries for military vehicles that have none.(Pay Wall)

Knowing how important batteries are to vehicles, what’s with the EPA’s draconian regulations forcing the closure of the last US lead smelter……..

It is well established that the American revolution was financed in part by the personal wealth and family treasure of early American citizens.

So what explains the stubborn global push to keep the climate change con going, the various environmental schemes going against all the available science, the same con jobs that are draining the US Treasury and the portfolios of the most wealthy among us and the pocket books of the average American through “smart” high energy and fuel prices?

So just to recap, communism is top-down, central planning and control of private rights. I think we all need to learn how to say No as more and more are doing daily.

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

Share

Should Beheadings Be Raised to Capital Murder?

As you may have seen, the US has a recent beheading. Oklahoma of all places.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/26/woman-beheaded-at-oklahoma-food-distribution-center-police-say/

There may be a call to raise beheading murders to capital murder. I say, Why not consider it.
I’ve read pertinent portions of the Koran that speak to beheadings of Christians. The Koran’s justification is that Christians are considered polytheists and therefore the equivalent of heathens and atheists and may be killed if they do not convert to the Muslim faith after being given a chance to reform.

From reading a paper from the Catholic Church, the Muslim faith is powerful in the sense that Muslims believe no intercessor is necessary to communicate directly with or to God. I am given to understand that there may be a similar concept of direct communication with God that exists in at least one Protestant faith.

Problematic for Muslims and the rest of us, is that the Koran does not teach submission to the civil authority. It is a younger religion than Christianity by about 400 to 500 years, but it is old enough to have begun when civil authority was not as well developed as it is today. Civil authority is meant to include both the limitations imposed by legislative enactments and by the Constitution. (Is anyone in the administrative law process noticing this definition of civil authority?)(At least one now resigned federal level administrative type was talking about crucifying villagers as an analogous philosophy of agency enforcement.)

In fact, the Muslim concept of four or so Muslims wandering the streets looking to enforce religious standards as they find them is similar to Karl Marx’ notion of a core of committed Communists whose faithful indoctrination to chiliastic Marxist utopian principles guide their on-the-spot enforcement of party rules thereby purporting to eliminate the need for sheriffs, juries, lawyers, judges and executioners. In a way, that sounds similar to the current administrative state. Only in the instance of Muslims and Communists, they could have a senior cleric or party officer bless the actions instead of an administrative law judge.

We also see elements of civil disobedience, I suppose a form of sporadic refusal to submit to civil authority, in the various Communist liberation movements. Brezhnev referenced the existence of various national liberation movements in 1973. And the animal liberation movement got a push with the publication a book of the same name in 1975. Animal liberation papers on civil disobedience followed.

The various reprints of Blackstone’s on common law, adopted by Texas via Virginia, consistently make clear the prohibition of the combination of the office and duties of the Sheriff with the office and duties of the Judge as obvious conflicts. And authentic due process can only come from honoring the priority of individual rights to confront the accuser (who may be the Sheriff himself), put the accuser to the burden of proof in front of an impartial magistrate and have the benefit of a jury of fellow citizens in order to insulate citizens from overreach by both the Sheriff and the King’s orders.

Proceedings such as that described by the Koran provide for a process, but not authentic due process, and so that is why I say the Koran does not submit to civil authority. I am not saying that all practitioners of the Muslim faith do not submit to civil authority. But, I am saying that anyone who acts upon the literal meaning of ancient text, regardless of religious affiliation, that refuses to recognize the God-given fundamental rights of other individuals will lead to serious trouble.

So what would a capital punishment statute look like. I don’t know all the particulars at this early point, but one would think from the defense angle that an individual’s fundamental religious freedom does not extend to private executions.

In the instant Oklahoma case, it appears, so the allegations seem at this early point, not commenting on guilt or innocence, rather the mechanics of the alleged murder, that the act of beheading did not result in the death, instead occurred after the fatal stabbing.

If a capital murder statute had to allege the cause of death as beheading, then murder first by some other means and some sort of body mutilation afterwards might constitute a defense to capital murder by beheading. So, I would think that one might want to take that into account somehow, if possible, so that the death penalty cannot be avoided that way. Another aspect is whether the means (manual or mechanical) of beheading should be omitted from such a statute. If so, then some guillotine deaths might also fall under such a statute which would not be an automatically bad thing. But remember that in the past, some hangings accidentally resulted in separated heads.

At least one person suggests that the legislative banning of Sharia Law takes away the goal of the Muslims to conquer America ; that goal being to impose Sharia Law. That idea may be worthy of some additional thought. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/defeat_isis_in_the_comfort_of_your_own_home.html

Forever, I’ve heard the Catholic Church criticized for overreach during the Spanish Inquisition. After a little research I discovered that the Spanish Inquisition came at the end of a 450 year long struggle by the Spanish to rout the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. As in the beginning of any struggle, there is a lag time between the attack and the response. And after the defense is built up, there is lag time at the end of any long struggle, where the remaining vestiges of the forces used to oust the enemy continue to exist. Those remaining forces then seek purpose for its continued existence. So it must have been with the Spanish. In fact, the end of the ejection of the Moors from Spain was marked by Columbus’ voyage in 1492 to the Americas.

I think we should consider responding more quickly than any 450 years to recognize and respond to extralegal proceedings occurring inside our borders but that operate outside the limitations of the civil law and of the limitations imposed by the US Constitution.

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

Share

Rescuing the 21st Century [or Bringing Back Self Determination?]

“Yet somewhere over the next decade a strange reversal took place. Everyone was astonished to learn the future was really the 8th century. In the major capitals of the West it became fashionable to don a keffiyeh, burka or grow a beard. British public figures started converting to Islam. But there was more. Set to challenge the 8th century for supremacy of the coming century was a resurgent 19th. Malthus, in the shape of Global Warming and Marx in the guise of political correctness and “positive rights” were back in intellectual vogue. Socialism, which had collapsed of its own weight in the late 20th century was again resurrected, for the nth time, as the Coming Thing.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

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.

Share

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

Thoughts:

God promises a perfect world in the afterlife.
Satan promises utopia (chiliastic Marxism) through government (central planning of private property) in this life.

I smell sulfur burning.

Livy

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

Von Mises Eschatology 001

Eschatology

Share

All Attempts at Central Control are Phony and Threaten America’s Exceptionalism from Communism

Central control of private property, whether it is for the common good, earth liberation, animal liberation, the lesser prairie chicken (pinnated grouse), a feigned groundwater shortage, a tortoise or for redistribution of wealth, is pure Marxism because it abolishes private property as set out in the last two pages of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto. This is not rocket science. The simplicity of figuring this out might explain why so few schools teach about the dangerous cancer of the Communist Manifesto. Central control and private property irreconcilably conflict. One cannot exist in the presence of the other. The carjacker either has your car or he does not. There is no middle ground. The government has an affirmative duty to thwart carjackers and other property grabbers equally.

The reason for central control is irrelevant because Jesus taught the attitude of abundance, love and generosity with the fishes and loaves even in times of true scarcity. But the current attitude of scarcity breeds the brutality of the denial of sacred individual rights, as brutality advocated by Hegel, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Hardin and Alinsky who spoke admiringly of Lucifer in his book “Rules For Radicals”.

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

Hegel 001

Alinsky Lucifer 001

Chap 2 Comm Manifesto 001

Share

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

Share

Reverse Invasion of Property

Reverse invasion of property
Marxist central control abolishes private property rights

This morning I heard on the Chad Hasty Show talk about the “need” for some sort of environmental study regarding the sonic booms in Midland and their effect on the prairie chicken aka pinnated grouse.

Hunting with even light shotgun bird loads for dove in grouse habitat causes sonic booms as the projectile breaks the sound barrier, yet, I’ve never before heard any such ridiculous objection.

The recently proposed Federal Register regulations say that no invasion of the properties will occur as a part of their [Marxist top-down central] “planning” [and control].

Those proposed regulations, 79 Federal Register 27060 and 27052, can be easily found with a google or bing search. The comment period for one of them ends tomorrow, 11 July 2014.

Prohibiting sonic booms on land adjacent to grouse breeding grounds seems like a reverse invasion of property. I’ve never heard of a reverse invasion before but I have heard of reverse condemnation. In addition, their low-level population surveys invade private property, so the Fed Register regs are based on a lie. There I said it.

How are they going to cite people for violations without invading the private land? We know full well the regulations constitute an illegitimate Marxist taking.

If there are no meaningful remedies in the administrative system (Progressive Kangaroo Court), then the long term benefits of correctly tying Marxist Socialism (Communism) to the Endangered Species Act when applied to private property are obvious. Since 1973 this nonsense has been going on. Even for biblical times, 40 years is long enough to wander the communist wilderness. It’s time to find our way out. Learn how to say No.

Ludwig von Mises figured all this out and published his analysis in 1951. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. It’s not rocket science. It’s time to start saying No.

“Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined the
proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-12/html/2014-10503.htm

Share